Discussion:
The person who fired the fatal shot
Add Reply
Robert Turner
2017-08-01 18:55:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I was taking photographs from the TV, and of the Zapruder footage, and a
closer look using the Zoom facilities of my camera. Two figures in the
background seemed very odd, (who I later discovered were supposed to be
Jean Hill and Mary Moorman), and the one in blue looked as if 'she' was
taking a photograph with a camera at her face. But when you look closely,
'her' right hand looks very much like something made of metal or wood, and
coloured to look like flesh - and part of a frame of some kind. This made
me look more closely, and I now think that both of these figures have
weapons, and that one of them fired the fatal shot that killed the
president. I have put more details on my website:
www.robsdataservices.co.uk. (I hope to get some images with the best
detail available, (to go further down the road of 'proving' this), and if
anybody can help, please contact me...) Robert Turner
Jason Burke
2017-08-02 13:46:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Turner
I was taking photographs from the TV, and of the Zapruder footage, and a
closer look using the Zoom facilities of my camera. Two figures in the
background seemed very odd, (who I later discovered were supposed to be
Jean Hill and Mary Moorman), and the one in blue looked as if 'she' was
taking a photograph with a camera at her face. But when you look closely,
'her' right hand looks very much like something made of metal or wood, and
coloured to look like flesh - and part of a frame of some kind. This made
me look more closely, and I now think that both of these figures have
weapons, and that one of them fired the fatal shot that killed the
www.robsdataservices.co.uk. (I hope to get some images with the best
detail available, (to go further down the road of 'proving' this), and if
anybody can help, please contact me...) Robert Turner
Oh.
Goody.
Now you make sure to tell Ralph about your great discovery there, Robert.
Jason Burke
2017-08-02 13:46:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Turner
I was taking photographs from the TV, and of the Zapruder footage, and a
closer look using the Zoom facilities of my camera. Two figures in the
background seemed very odd, (who I later discovered were supposed to be
Jean Hill and Mary Moorman), and the one in blue looked as if 'she' was
taking a photograph with a camera at her face. But when you look closely,
'her' right hand looks very much like something made of metal or wood, and
coloured to look like flesh - and part of a frame of some kind. This made
me look more closely, and I now think that both of these figures have
weapons, and that one of them fired the fatal shot that killed the
www.robsdataservices.co.uk. (I hope to get some images with the best
detail available, (to go further down the road of 'proving' this), and if
anybody can help, please contact me...) Robert Turner
Hopefully this dude won't figure out who Greer is.
Ace Kefford
2017-08-03 02:36:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Robert Turner
I was taking photographs from the TV, and of the Zapruder footage, and a
closer look using the Zoom facilities of my camera. Two figures in the
background seemed very odd, (who I later discovered were supposed to be
Jean Hill and Mary Moorman), and the one in blue looked as if 'she' was
taking a photograph with a camera at her face. But when you look closely,
'her' right hand looks very much like something made of metal or wood, and
coloured to look like flesh - and part of a frame of some kind. This made
me look more closely, and I now think that both of these figures have
weapons, and that one of them fired the fatal shot that killed the
www.robsdataservices.co.uk. (I hope to get some images with the best
detail available, (to go further down the road of 'proving' this), and if
anybody can help, please contact me...) Robert Turner
Hopefully this dude won't figure out who Greer is.
O.J. reportedly confessed to Rosey Greer, maybe.
Jason Burke
2017-08-04 00:52:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Robert Turner
I was taking photographs from the TV, and of the Zapruder footage, and a
closer look using the Zoom facilities of my camera. Two figures in the
background seemed very odd, (who I later discovered were supposed to be
Jean Hill and Mary Moorman), and the one in blue looked as if 'she' was
taking a photograph with a camera at her face. But when you look closely,
'her' right hand looks very much like something made of metal or wood, and
coloured to look like flesh - and part of a frame of some kind. This made
me look more closely, and I now think that both of these figures have
weapons, and that one of them fired the fatal shot that killed the
www.robsdataservices.co.uk. (I hope to get some images with the best
detail available, (to go further down the road of 'proving' this), and if
anybody can help, please contact me...) Robert Turner
Hopefully this dude won't figure out who Greer is.
O.J. reportedly confessed to Rosey Greer, maybe.
Wrong Dead Kennedy, I'm thinking.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-03 02:40:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Robert Turner
I was taking photographs from the TV, and of the Zapruder footage, and a
closer look using the Zoom facilities of my camera. Two figures in the
background seemed very odd, (who I later discovered were supposed to be
Jean Hill and Mary Moorman), and the one in blue looked as if 'she' was
taking a photograph with a camera at her face. But when you look closely,
'her' right hand looks very much like something made of metal or wood, and
coloured to look like flesh - and part of a frame of some kind. This made
me look more closely, and I now think that both of these figures have
weapons, and that one of them fired the fatal shot that killed the
www.robsdataservices.co.uk. (I hope to get some images with the best
detail available, (to go further down the road of 'proving' this), and if
anybody can help, please contact me...) Robert Turner
Hopefully this dude won't figure out who Greer is.
Why doesn't he start a separate thread about the Greer Did It Theory?
We used to have one kook who claimed that Jackie had a derringer hidden
in her pill box hat.
bigdog
2017-08-02 13:46:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Turner
I was taking photographs from the TV, and of the Zapruder footage, and a
closer look using the Zoom facilities of my camera. Two figures in the
background seemed very odd, (who I later discovered were supposed to be
Jean Hill and Mary Moorman), and the one in blue looked as if 'she' was
taking a photograph with a camera at her face. But when you look closely,
'her' right hand looks very much like something made of metal or wood, and
coloured to look like flesh - and part of a frame of some kind. This made
me look more closely, and I now think that both of these figures have
weapons, and that one of them fired the fatal shot that killed the
www.robsdataservices.co.uk. (I hope to get some images with the best
detail available, (to go further down the road of 'proving' this), and if
anybody can help, please contact me...) Robert Turner
Ralph, we have a new candidate for the OIC. It's your call but I think he
meets all of the qualification.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-03 02:40:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Robert Turner
I was taking photographs from the TV, and of the Zapruder footage, and a
closer look using the Zoom facilities of my camera. Two figures in the
background seemed very odd, (who I later discovered were supposed to be
Jean Hill and Mary Moorman), and the one in blue looked as if 'she' was
taking a photograph with a camera at her face. But when you look closely,
'her' right hand looks very much like something made of metal or wood, and
coloured to look like flesh - and part of a frame of some kind. This made
me look more closely, and I now think that both of these figures have
weapons, and that one of them fired the fatal shot that killed the
www.robsdataservices.co.uk. (I hope to get some images with the best
detail available, (to go further down the road of 'proving' this), and if
anybody can help, please contact me...) Robert Turner
Ralph, we have a new candidate for the OIC. It's your call but I think he
meets all of the qualification.
What do you call that when some kook just makes up more aliases to make it
appear that he has more people in his club? The way Oswald made his wife
sign a fake name to be part of his imaginary FPCC chapter. Is that called
desperation? Or is that multiplicity? (obscure reference to a stupid movie
with that title)
Amy Joyce
2017-08-02 20:11:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Turner
I was taking photographs from the TV, and of the Zapruder footage, and a
closer look using the Zoom facilities of my camera. Two figures in the
background seemed very odd, (who I later discovered were supposed to be
Jean Hill and Mary Moorman), and the one in blue looked as if 'she' was
taking a photograph with a camera at her face. But when you look closely,
'her' right hand looks very much like something made of metal or wood, and
coloured to look like flesh - and part of a frame of some kind. This made
me look more closely, and I now think that both of these figures have
weapons, and that one of them fired the fatal shot that killed the
www.robsdataservices.co.uk. (I hope to get some images with the best
detail available, (to go further down the road of 'proving' this), and if
anybody can help, please contact me...) Robert Turner
Robert, I think you are the first to consider that the head shot came from
the South side of Elm street. How could a weapon fired from there either
go around and strike JFK near his right temple, OR go around and strike
JFK in the back of the head?

Interesting though is that these closeups show both Hill and Moorman
wearing white shoes, but the photos of the two leaving the car prior to
the parade show that their shoes were actually dark colored.
Jason Burke
2017-08-03 02:49:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Robert Turner
I was taking photographs from the TV, and of the Zapruder footage, and a
closer look using the Zoom facilities of my camera. Two figures in the
background seemed very odd, (who I later discovered were supposed to be
Jean Hill and Mary Moorman), and the one in blue looked as if 'she' was
taking a photograph with a camera at her face. But when you look closely,
'her' right hand looks very much like something made of metal or wood, and
coloured to look like flesh - and part of a frame of some kind. This made
me look more closely, and I now think that both of these figures have
weapons, and that one of them fired the fatal shot that killed the
www.robsdataservices.co.uk. (I hope to get some images with the best
detail available, (to go further down the road of 'proving' this), and if
anybody can help, please contact me...) Robert Turner
Robert, I think you are the first to consider that the head shot came from
the South side of Elm street. How could a weapon fired from there either
go around and strike JFK near his right temple, OR go around and strike
JFK in the back of the head?
That is one Magic Bullet.
Post by Amy Joyce
Interesting though is that these closeups show both Hill and Moorman
wearing white shoes, but the photos of the two leaving the car prior to
the parade show that their shoes were actually dark colored.
mainframetech
2017-08-03 14:48:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Robert Turner
I was taking photographs from the TV, and of the Zapruder footage, and a
closer look using the Zoom facilities of my camera. Two figures in the
background seemed very odd, (who I later discovered were supposed to be
Jean Hill and Mary Moorman), and the one in blue looked as if 'she' was
taking a photograph with a camera at her face. But when you look closely,
'her' right hand looks very much like something made of metal or wood, and
coloured to look like flesh - and part of a frame of some kind. This made
me look more closely, and I now think that both of these figures have
weapons, and that one of them fired the fatal shot that killed the
www.robsdataservices.co.uk. (I hope to get some images with the best
detail available, (to go further down the road of 'proving' this), and if
anybody can help, please contact me...) Robert Turner
Robert, I think you are the first to consider that the head shot came from
the South side of Elm street. How could a weapon fired from there either
go around and strike JFK near his right temple, OR go around and strike
JFK in the back of the head?
Interesting though is that these closeups show both Hill and Moorman
wearing white shoes, but the photos of the two leaving the car prior to
the parade show that their shoes were actually dark colored.
Check this video out at frame 299. They have white shoes in that frame:



I don't know what happened to the one where they have dark shoes.

Chris
Amy Joyce
2017-08-04 01:47:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Robert Turner
I was taking photographs from the TV, and of the Zapruder footage, and a
closer look using the Zoom facilities of my camera. Two figures in the
background seemed very odd, (who I later discovered were supposed to be
Jean Hill and Mary Moorman), and the one in blue looked as if 'she' was
taking a photograph with a camera at her face. But when you look closely,
'her' right hand looks very much like something made of metal or wood, and
coloured to look like flesh - and part of a frame of some kind. This made
me look more closely, and I now think that both of these figures have
weapons, and that one of them fired the fatal shot that killed the
www.robsdataservices.co.uk. (I hope to get some images with the best
detail available, (to go further down the road of 'proving' this), and if
anybody can help, please contact me...) Robert Turner
Robert, I think you are the first to consider that the head shot came from
the South side of Elm street. How could a weapon fired from there either
go around and strike JFK near his right temple, OR go around and strike
JFK in the back of the head?
Interesting though is that these closeups show both Hill and Moorman
wearing white shoes, but the photos of the two leaving the car prior to
the parade show that their shoes were actually dark colored.
http://youtu.be/iU83R7rpXQY
I don't know what happened to the one where they have dark shoes.
Chris
Here it is. Pre-assassination photos.

Loading Image...
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-03 19:55:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Robert Turner
I was taking photographs from the TV, and of the Zapruder footage, and a
closer look using the Zoom facilities of my camera. Two figures in the
background seemed very odd, (who I later discovered were supposed to be
Jean Hill and Mary Moorman), and the one in blue looked as if 'she' was
taking a photograph with a camera at her face. But when you look closely,
'her' right hand looks very much like something made of metal or wood, and
coloured to look like flesh - and part of a frame of some kind. This made
me look more closely, and I now think that both of these figures have
weapons, and that one of them fired the fatal shot that killed the
www.robsdataservices.co.uk. (I hope to get some images with the best
detail available, (to go further down the road of 'proving' this), and if
anybody can help, please contact me...) Robert Turner
Robert, I think you are the first to consider that the head shot came from
the South side of Elm street. How could a weapon fired from there either
go around and strike JFK near his right temple, OR go around and strike
JFK in the back of the head?
No. Other kooks have suggested it before. The angles do not work and
there is not a good shooter location.
Who told you that JFK was shot in the right temple?
Post by Amy Joyce
Interesting though is that these closeups show both Hill and Moorman
wearing white shoes, but the photos of the two leaving the car prior to
the parade show that their shoes were actually dark colored.
Amy Joyce
2017-08-04 04:25:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Robert Turner
I was taking photographs from the TV, and of the Zapruder footage, and a
closer look using the Zoom facilities of my camera. Two figures in the
background seemed very odd, (who I later discovered were supposed to be
Jean Hill and Mary Moorman), and the one in blue looked as if 'she' was
taking a photograph with a camera at her face. But when you look closely,
'her' right hand looks very much like something made of metal or wood, and
coloured to look like flesh - and part of a frame of some kind. This made
me look more closely, and I now think that both of these figures have
weapons, and that one of them fired the fatal shot that killed the
www.robsdataservices.co.uk. (I hope to get some images with the best
detail available, (to go further down the road of 'proving' this), and if
anybody can help, please contact me...) Robert Turner
Robert, I think you are the first to consider that the head shot came from
the South side of Elm street. How could a weapon fired from there either
go around and strike JFK near his right temple, OR go around and strike
JFK in the back of the head?
No. Other kooks have suggested it before. The angles do not work and
there is not a good shooter location.
Who told you that JFK was shot in the right temple?
Yes Anthony, of course the angle doesn't work.

Interesting, I didn't know others have said the head-shot came from a
shooter on the other side of Elm Street. Good thing I said "I think" :-)

Nobody told me that JFK was shot in the right temple. I know that some
people believe that the head shot entered in that general area, while
others believe it entered the back of the head.
mainframetech
2017-08-05 02:32:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Robert Turner
I was taking photographs from the TV, and of the Zapruder footage, and a
closer look using the Zoom facilities of my camera. Two figures in the
background seemed very odd, (who I later discovered were supposed to be
Jean Hill and Mary Moorman), and the one in blue looked as if 'she' was
taking a photograph with a camera at her face. But when you look closely,
'her' right hand looks very much like something made of metal or wood, and
coloured to look like flesh - and part of a frame of some kind. This made
me look more closely, and I now think that both of these figures have
weapons, and that one of them fired the fatal shot that killed the
www.robsdataservices.co.uk. (I hope to get some images with the best
detail available, (to go further down the road of 'proving' this), and if
anybody can help, please contact me...) Robert Turner
Robert, I think you are the first to consider that the head shot came from
the South side of Elm street. How could a weapon fired from there either
go around and strike JFK near his right temple, OR go around and strike
JFK in the back of the head?
No. Other kooks have suggested it before. The angles do not work and
there is not a good shooter location.
Who told you that JFK was shot in the right temple?
Yes Anthony, of course the angle doesn't work.
Interesting, I didn't know others have said the head-shot came from a
shooter on the other side of Elm Street. Good thing I said "I think" :-)
Nobody told me that JFK was shot in the right temple. I know that some
people believe that the head shot entered in that general area, while
others believe it entered the back of the head.
For those with no LN bias, it's easy to see the bullet hole in the
photo below. ENLARGE the photo and look at the right forehead just in the
hair hanging down:

Loading Image...

The first impressions that people were announcing was that JFK was hit
by a bullet from forward of the limo. But the powers that be quickly got
on that one and pushed the idea that a bullet hit the BOH and that was
what made the 'back and to the left' movement of JFK. Many people bought
it too.

Chris
John McAdams
2017-08-05 02:34:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Robert Turner
I was taking photographs from the TV, and of the Zapruder footage, and a
closer look using the Zoom facilities of my camera. Two figures in the
background seemed very odd, (who I later discovered were supposed to be
Jean Hill and Mary Moorman), and the one in blue looked as if 'she' was
taking a photograph with a camera at her face. But when you look closely,
'her' right hand looks very much like something made of metal or wood, and
coloured to look like flesh - and part of a frame of some kind. This made
me look more closely, and I now think that both of these figures have
weapons, and that one of them fired the fatal shot that killed the
www.robsdataservices.co.uk. (I hope to get some images with the best
detail available, (to go further down the road of 'proving' this), and if
anybody can help, please contact me...) Robert Turner
Robert, I think you are the first to consider that the head shot came from
the South side of Elm street. How could a weapon fired from there either
go around and strike JFK near his right temple, OR go around and strike
JFK in the back of the head?
No. Other kooks have suggested it before. The angles do not work and
there is not a good shooter location.
Who told you that JFK was shot in the right temple?
Yes Anthony, of course the angle doesn't work.
Interesting, I didn't know others have said the head-shot came from a
shooter on the other side of Elm Street. Good thing I said "I think" :-)
Nobody told me that JFK was shot in the right temple. I know that some
people believe that the head shot entered in that general area, while
others believe it entered the back of the head.
For those with no LN bias, it's easy to see the bullet hole in the
photo below. ENLARGE the photo and look at the right forehead just in the
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
You seem to be a member of the Ralph Cinque school of photo analysis.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
bigdog
2017-08-06 12:41:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Robert Turner
I was taking photographs from the TV, and of the Zapruder footage, and a
closer look using the Zoom facilities of my camera. Two figures in the
background seemed very odd, (who I later discovered were supposed to be
Jean Hill and Mary Moorman), and the one in blue looked as if 'she' was
taking a photograph with a camera at her face. But when you look closely,
'her' right hand looks very much like something made of metal or wood, and
coloured to look like flesh - and part of a frame of some kind. This made
me look more closely, and I now think that both of these figures have
weapons, and that one of them fired the fatal shot that killed the
www.robsdataservices.co.uk. (I hope to get some images with the best
detail available, (to go further down the road of 'proving' this), and if
anybody can help, please contact me...) Robert Turner
Robert, I think you are the first to consider that the head shot came from
the South side of Elm street. How could a weapon fired from there either
go around and strike JFK near his right temple, OR go around and strike
JFK in the back of the head?
No. Other kooks have suggested it before. The angles do not work and
there is not a good shooter location.
Who told you that JFK was shot in the right temple?
Yes Anthony, of course the angle doesn't work.
Interesting, I didn't know others have said the head-shot came from a
shooter on the other side of Elm Street. Good thing I said "I think" :-)
Nobody told me that JFK was shot in the right temple. I know that some
people believe that the head shot entered in that general area, while
others believe it entered the back of the head.
For those with no LN bias, it's easy to see the bullet hole in the
photo below. ENLARGE the photo and look at the right forehead just in the
It's so easy to see that by your own admission you couldn't see it for
years. You first had to convince yourself there was one there and then
PRESTO!!! there it was.
Post by mainframetech
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
The first impressions that people were announcing was that JFK was hit
by a bullet from forward of the limo. But the powers that be quickly got
on that one and pushed the idea that a bullet hit the BOH and that was
what made the 'back and to the left' movement of JFK. Many people bought
it too.
That is what the medical evidence tells us beyond a shadow of a doubt. The
fracture pattern radiating from the entry point in the rear of the skull
and the inward beveling of the skull wall at that point is proof positive
of an entry wound there. But why go with real evidence when you have your
imagination to rely on.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-07 14:01:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Robert Turner
I was taking photographs from the TV, and of the Zapruder footage, and a
closer look using the Zoom facilities of my camera. Two figures in the
background seemed very odd, (who I later discovered were supposed to be
Jean Hill and Mary Moorman), and the one in blue looked as if 'she' was
taking a photograph with a camera at her face. But when you look closely,
'her' right hand looks very much like something made of metal or wood, and
coloured to look like flesh - and part of a frame of some kind. This made
me look more closely, and I now think that both of these figures have
weapons, and that one of them fired the fatal shot that killed the
www.robsdataservices.co.uk. (I hope to get some images with the best
detail available, (to go further down the road of 'proving' this), and if
anybody can help, please contact me...) Robert Turner
Robert, I think you are the first to consider that the head shot came from
the South side of Elm street. How could a weapon fired from there either
go around and strike JFK near his right temple, OR go around and strike
JFK in the back of the head?
No. Other kooks have suggested it before. The angles do not work and
there is not a good shooter location.
Who told you that JFK was shot in the right temple?
Yes Anthony, of course the angle doesn't work.
Interesting, I didn't know others have said the head-shot came from a
shooter on the other side of Elm Street. Good thing I said "I think" :-)
Nobody told me that JFK was shot in the right temple. I know that some
people believe that the head shot entered in that general area, while
others believe it entered the back of the head.
For those with no LN bias, it's easy to see the bullet hole in the
photo below. ENLARGE the photo and look at the right forehead just in the
It's so easy to see that by your own admission you couldn't see it for
years. You first had to convince yourself there was one there and then
PRESTO!!! there it was.
It wasn't even available for years. Did YOU see it when the WC came out?
You can't even see it now.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
The first impressions that people were announcing was that JFK was hit
by a bullet from forward of the limo. But the powers that be quickly got
on that one and pushed the idea that a bullet hit the BOH and that was
what made the 'back and to the left' movement of JFK. Many people bought
it too.
That is what the medical evidence tells us beyond a shadow of a doubt. The
fracture pattern radiating from the entry point in the rear of the skull
and the inward beveling of the skull wall at that point is proof positive
of an entry wound there. But why go with real evidence when you have your
imagination to rely on.
False.
Beveling? what a joke. SHOW me the beveling. You can't.
And as I pointed out hundreds of times before, some experts simply lie
about the beveling and what it proves.
claviger
2017-08-08 16:26:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Robert Turner
I was taking photographs from the TV, and of the Zapruder footage, and a
closer look using the Zoom facilities of my camera. Two figures in the
background seemed very odd, (who I later discovered were supposed to be
Jean Hill and Mary Moorman), and the one in blue looked as if 'she' was
taking a photograph with a camera at her face. But when you look closely,
'her' right hand looks very much like something made of metal or wood, and
coloured to look like flesh - and part of a frame of some kind. This made
me look more closely, and I now think that both of these figures have
weapons, and that one of them fired the fatal shot that killed the
www.robsdataservices.co.uk. (I hope to get some images with the best
detail available, (to go further down the road of 'proving' this), and if
anybody can help, please contact me...) Robert Turner
Robert, I think you are the first to consider that the head shot came from
the South side of Elm street. How could a weapon fired from there either
go around and strike JFK near his right temple, OR go around and strike
JFK in the back of the head?
No. Other kooks have suggested it before. The angles do not work and
there is not a good shooter location.
Who told you that JFK was shot in the right temple?
Yes Anthony, of course the angle doesn't work.
Interesting, I didn't know others have said the head-shot came from a
shooter on the other side of Elm Street. Good thing I said "I think" :-)
Nobody told me that JFK was shot in the right temple. I know that some
people believe that the head shot entered in that general area, while
others believe it entered the back of the head.
For those with no LN bias, it's easy to see the bullet hole in the
photo below. ENLARGE the photo and look at the right forehead just in the
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
The first impressions that people were announcing was that JFK was hit
by a bullet from forward of the limo. But the powers that be quickly got
on that one and pushed the idea that a bullet hit the BOH and that was
what made the 'back and to the left' movement of JFK. Many people bought
it too.
Chris
So you claim the team of doctors involved in the autopsy went through all
kinds of machinations, subterfuge, trickery, and manipulation to make
major alterations to the wounds, but forgot to check all the numerous
photos taken that night? All that work for nothing since not one person
involved in the conspiracy thought of that.
Steve M. Galbraith
2017-08-09 02:30:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Robert Turner
I was taking photographs from the TV, and of the Zapruder footage, and a
closer look using the Zoom facilities of my camera. Two figures in the
background seemed very odd, (who I later discovered were supposed to be
Jean Hill and Mary Moorman), and the one in blue looked as if 'she' was
taking a photograph with a camera at her face. But when you look closely,
'her' right hand looks very much like something made of metal or wood, and
coloured to look like flesh - and part of a frame of some kind. This made
me look more closely, and I now think that both of these figures have
weapons, and that one of them fired the fatal shot that killed the
www.robsdataservices.co.uk. (I hope to get some images with the best
detail available, (to go further down the road of 'proving' this), and if
anybody can help, please contact me...) Robert Turner
Robert, I think you are the first to consider that the head shot came from
the South side of Elm street. How could a weapon fired from there either
go around and strike JFK near his right temple, OR go around and strike
JFK in the back of the head?
No. Other kooks have suggested it before. The angles do not work and
there is not a good shooter location.
Who told you that JFK was shot in the right temple?
Yes Anthony, of course the angle doesn't work.
Interesting, I didn't know others have said the head-shot came from a
shooter on the other side of Elm Street. Good thing I said "I think" :-)
Nobody told me that JFK was shot in the right temple. I know that some
people believe that the head shot entered in that general area, while
others believe it entered the back of the head.
For those with no LN bias, it's easy to see the bullet hole in the
photo below. ENLARGE the photo and look at the right forehead just in the
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
The first impressions that people were announcing was that JFK was hit
by a bullet from forward of the limo. But the powers that be quickly got
on that one and pushed the idea that a bullet hit the BOH and that was
what made the 'back and to the left' movement of JFK. Many people bought
it too.
Chris
So you claim the team of doctors involved in the autopsy went through all
kinds of machinations, subterfuge, trickery, and manipulation to make
major alterations to the wounds, but forgot to check all the numerous
photos taken that night? All that work for nothing since not one person
involved in the conspiracy thought of that.
He says the photos and x-rays were altered - his source is Jerrol Custer -
but then says the photos show a conspiracy since they show a bullet
entrance hole in JFK's forehead.

They're both fake and authentic; they show a conspiracy and don't show a
conspiracy. The same sources he says are fraudulent and worthless are
cited as being authentic and worthy of usage.

If someone who thinks like this isn't a kook then he's doing a damned good
impersonation of one.
bigdog
2017-08-09 20:00:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Robert Turner
I was taking photographs from the TV, and of the Zapruder footage, and a
closer look using the Zoom facilities of my camera. Two figures in the
background seemed very odd, (who I later discovered were supposed to be
Jean Hill and Mary Moorman), and the one in blue looked as if 'she' was
taking a photograph with a camera at her face. But when you look closely,
'her' right hand looks very much like something made of metal or wood, and
coloured to look like flesh - and part of a frame of some kind. This made
me look more closely, and I now think that both of these figures have
weapons, and that one of them fired the fatal shot that killed the
www.robsdataservices.co.uk. (I hope to get some images with the best
detail available, (to go further down the road of 'proving' this), and if
anybody can help, please contact me...) Robert Turner
Robert, I think you are the first to consider that the head shot came from
the South side of Elm street. How could a weapon fired from there either
go around and strike JFK near his right temple, OR go around and strike
JFK in the back of the head?
No. Other kooks have suggested it before. The angles do not work and
there is not a good shooter location.
Who told you that JFK was shot in the right temple?
Yes Anthony, of course the angle doesn't work.
Interesting, I didn't know others have said the head-shot came from a
shooter on the other side of Elm Street. Good thing I said "I think" :-)
Nobody told me that JFK was shot in the right temple. I know that some
people believe that the head shot entered in that general area, while
others believe it entered the back of the head.
For those with no LN bias, it's easy to see the bullet hole in the
photo below. ENLARGE the photo and look at the right forehead just in the
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
The first impressions that people were announcing was that JFK was hit
by a bullet from forward of the limo. But the powers that be quickly got
on that one and pushed the idea that a bullet hit the BOH and that was
what made the 'back and to the left' movement of JFK. Many people bought
it too.
Chris
So you claim the team of doctors involved in the autopsy went through all
kinds of machinations, subterfuge, trickery, and manipulation to make
major alterations to the wounds, but forgot to check all the numerous
photos taken that night? All that work for nothing since not one person
involved in the conspiracy thought of that.
He says the photos and x-rays were altered - his source is Jerrol Custer -
but then says the photos show a conspiracy since they show a bullet
entrance hole in JFK's forehead.
They're both fake and authentic; they show a conspiracy and don't show a
conspiracy. The same sources he says are fraudulent and worthless are
cited as being authentic and worthy of usage.
If someone who thinks like this isn't a kook then he's doing a damned good
impersonation of one.
I've dealt with more examples of Chris's double standards than I can
count. His only real criteria for whether something is credible or not is
whether it conforms to what he chooses to believe.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-09 12:00:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Robert Turner
I was taking photographs from the TV, and of the Zapruder footage, and a
closer look using the Zoom facilities of my camera. Two figures in the
background seemed very odd, (who I later discovered were supposed to be
Jean Hill and Mary Moorman), and the one in blue looked as if 'she' was
taking a photograph with a camera at her face. But when you look closely,
'her' right hand looks very much like something made of metal or wood, and
coloured to look like flesh - and part of a frame of some kind. This made
me look more closely, and I now think that both of these figures have
weapons, and that one of them fired the fatal shot that killed the
www.robsdataservices.co.uk. (I hope to get some images with the best
detail available, (to go further down the road of 'proving' this), and if
anybody can help, please contact me...) Robert Turner
Robert, I think you are the first to consider that the head shot came from
the South side of Elm street. How could a weapon fired from there either
go around and strike JFK near his right temple, OR go around and strike
JFK in the back of the head?
No. Other kooks have suggested it before. The angles do not work and
there is not a good shooter location.
Who told you that JFK was shot in the right temple?
Yes Anthony, of course the angle doesn't work.
Interesting, I didn't know others have said the head-shot came from a
shooter on the other side of Elm Street. Good thing I said "I think" :-)
Nobody told me that JFK was shot in the right temple. I know that some
people believe that the head shot entered in that general area, while
others believe it entered the back of the head.
For those with no LN bias, it's easy to see the bullet hole in the
photo below. ENLARGE the photo and look at the right forehead just in the
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
The first impressions that people were announcing was that JFK was hit
by a bullet from forward of the limo. But the powers that be quickly got
on that one and pushed the idea that a bullet hit the BOH and that was
what made the 'back and to the left' movement of JFK. Many people bought
it too.
Chris
So you claim the team of doctors involved in the autopsy went through all
kinds of machinations, subterfuge, trickery, and manipulation to make
major alterations to the wounds, but forgot to check all the numerous
photos taken that night? All that work for nothing since not one person
involved in the conspiracy thought of that.
Excuse me? The autopsy doctors were not allowed to see the autopsy
photos. They were wisked away by the Secret Service. They were not
allowed to see them until 1968 when Ramsey Clark ordered a review.
mainframetech
2017-08-10 12:49:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Robert Turner
I was taking photographs from the TV, and of the Zapruder footage, and a
closer look using the Zoom facilities of my camera. Two figures in the
background seemed very odd, (who I later discovered were supposed to be
Jean Hill and Mary Moorman), and the one in blue looked as if 'she' was
taking a photograph with a camera at her face. But when you look closely,
'her' right hand looks very much like something made of metal or wood, and
coloured to look like flesh - and part of a frame of some kind. This made
me look more closely, and I now think that both of these figures have
weapons, and that one of them fired the fatal shot that killed the
www.robsdataservices.co.uk. (I hope to get some images with the best
detail available, (to go further down the road of 'proving' this), and if
anybody can help, please contact me...) Robert Turner
Robert, I think you are the first to consider that the head shot came from
the South side of Elm street. How could a weapon fired from there either
go around and strike JFK near his right temple, OR go around and strike
JFK in the back of the head?
No. Other kooks have suggested it before. The angles do not work and
there is not a good shooter location.
Who told you that JFK was shot in the right temple?
Yes Anthony, of course the angle doesn't work.
Interesting, I didn't know others have said the head-shot came from a
shooter on the other side of Elm Street. Good thing I said "I think" :-)
Nobody told me that JFK was shot in the right temple. I know that some
people believe that the head shot entered in that general area, while
others believe it entered the back of the head.
For those with no LN bias, it's easy to see the bullet hole in the
photo below. ENLARGE the photo and look at the right forehead just in the
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
The first impressions that people were announcing was that JFK was hit
by a bullet from forward of the limo. But the powers that be quickly got
on that one and pushed the idea that a bullet hit the BOH and that was
what made the 'back and to the left' movement of JFK. Many people bought
it too.
Chris
So you claim the team of doctors involved in the autopsy went through all
kinds of machinations, subterfuge, trickery, and manipulation to make
major alterations to the wounds, but forgot to check all the numerous
photos taken that night? All that work for nothing since not one person
involved in the conspiracy thought of that.
Obviously you haven't a clue what I "claim". I will often state some
things though. Now, let's go through your ridiculous claim step by step.

First, All that work you incorrectly claim was done by the "team of
doctors" was false. There were only 2 "doctors" that performed the
clandestine work at 6:35pm on the body of JFK when it arrived at the
Bethesda morgue. And you'll just have to deal with the fact that there
were 2 witnesses. Yep, 2 of 'em. One was Edward Reed, an X-ray
Technician, and Tom Robinson, a local mortician who arrived early. They
both sat in the gallery watched for a while as Humes and Boswell did their
work. At one point, the enlisted men sitting there were kicked out of the
morgue by the 'doctors' so they wouldn't see everything that was done.
Robinson stayed for the duration. And later commented about the 'damage'
they had done to the body.

Second, their work was divided into 2 sections. First, they searched
the body for bullets and fragments. That is known from the sworn
testimony of the X-ray Technicians that helped in that effort. Second,
their work then was to expand the existing 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK,
attested to by the over 39 witnesses that saw it, so that it would appear
more like the damage was done to the head by a bullet that entered from
the rear. Of course, that bullet wound cannot be found in the current
'leaked' autopsy photos.

Expanding a hole in the head is really not anything difficult for
pathologists who regularly perform all kinds of procedures on dead bodies.

Later, Humes tried to make a joke in front of the gallery of admirals
generals and other dignitaries that were in the gallery at the scheduled
time, because through an event at the scheduled autopsy at 8:00pm, the
removal of the brain was far too easy, and Humes had to try and cover up
that they had taken it out earlier in the evening to search for bullets.
When the brain was taken out, he stated that "it almost fell out in my
hands". To anyone with medical or autopsy knowledge, it meant that the
spinal chord had been previous severed, and the same for the optic nerves,
and certain important blood vessels. All these must be severed BEFORE you
can remove the brain.


As to the photos taken that night, you've been had. The photographers
that took many of the photos that night stated that when they found that
many of their photos were missing from the sets they took, they were
ordered to sign off that all the photos were there:

testimony of John Stringer, photographer:

"Q: When you signed this document, Exhibit 78,
were you intending to either agree or disagree with
the conclusion reached in the second to last -
next to last sentence?
A: I told him that I disagreed with him, but
they said, "Sign it."
Q: And who is "they" who said, "Sign it"?
A: Captain Stover."

testimony of Floyd Riebe:

Q: Is the information in this statement correct
in regard to the total number of exposures that were
made?
A: It is hard to tell. I mean I don't remember
exactly, and there has been changes on here. So I
don't - and the deletion of the 35 millimeter. So now
I don't know. We was shown this and told to sign it
and that was it.

Stover was the Commander of the Bethesda Naval Medical School. He
ordered those men to sign off that all photos they took at the autopsy
were in the sets that were available, when in reality many were missing.


So once again you've launched your vessel onto troubled waters and
gotten everything wrong as usual. You might want to stop being so afraid
of the facts and testimony in the ARRB files, and then you'd be up on what
happened.

Chris
bigdog
2017-08-11 16:57:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Robert Turner
I was taking photographs from the TV, and of the Zapruder footage, and a
closer look using the Zoom facilities of my camera. Two figures in the
background seemed very odd, (who I later discovered were supposed to be
Jean Hill and Mary Moorman), and the one in blue looked as if 'she' was
taking a photograph with a camera at her face. But when you look closely,
'her' right hand looks very much like something made of metal or wood, and
coloured to look like flesh - and part of a frame of some kind. This made
me look more closely, and I now think that both of these figures have
weapons, and that one of them fired the fatal shot that killed the
www.robsdataservices.co.uk. (I hope to get some images with the best
detail available, (to go further down the road of 'proving' this), and if
anybody can help, please contact me...) Robert Turner
Robert, I think you are the first to consider that the head shot came from
the South side of Elm street. How could a weapon fired from there either
go around and strike JFK near his right temple, OR go around and strike
JFK in the back of the head?
No. Other kooks have suggested it before. The angles do not work and
there is not a good shooter location.
Who told you that JFK was shot in the right temple?
Yes Anthony, of course the angle doesn't work.
Interesting, I didn't know others have said the head-shot came from a
shooter on the other side of Elm Street. Good thing I said "I think" :-)
Nobody told me that JFK was shot in the right temple. I know that some
people believe that the head shot entered in that general area, while
others believe it entered the back of the head.
For those with no LN bias, it's easy to see the bullet hole in the
photo below. ENLARGE the photo and look at the right forehead just in the
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
The first impressions that people were announcing was that JFK was hit
by a bullet from forward of the limo. But the powers that be quickly got
on that one and pushed the idea that a bullet hit the BOH and that was
what made the 'back and to the left' movement of JFK. Many people bought
it too.
Chris
So you claim the team of doctors involved in the autopsy went through all
kinds of machinations, subterfuge, trickery, and manipulation to make
major alterations to the wounds, but forgot to check all the numerous
photos taken that night? All that work for nothing since not one person
involved in the conspiracy thought of that.
Obviously you haven't a clue what I "claim".
Does anybody?
Post by mainframetech
I will often state some
things though. Now, let's go through your ridiculous claim step by step.
First, All that work you incorrectly claim was done by the "team of
doctors" was false. There were only 2 "doctors" that performed the
clandestine work at 6:35pm on the body of JFK when it arrived at the
Bethesda morgue.
Your silliness stems from your belief that clandestine work was done.
Post by mainframetech
And you'll just have to deal with the fact that there
were 2 witnesses. Yep, 2 of 'em. One was Edward Reed, an X-ray
Technician, and Tom Robinson, a local mortician who arrived early. They
both sat in the gallery watched for a while as Humes and Boswell did their
work. At one point, the enlisted men sitting there were kicked out of the
morgue by the 'doctors' so they wouldn't see everything that was done.
If clandestine work was being done why would they have allowed the techies
to observe any of it?
Post by mainframetech
Robinson stayed for the duration. And later commented about the 'damage'
they had done to the body.
Why would Robinson and Reed have been allowed to observe clandestine work?
It's hard to argue it was clandestine if witnesses were allowed to observe
it.
Post by mainframetech
Second, their work was divided into 2 sections. First, they searched
the body for bullets and fragments.
Which witness said that happened?
Post by mainframetech
That is known from the sworn
testimony of the X-ray Technicians that helped in that effort.
I'd love to see that quote. Of course I know I never will.
Post by mainframetech
Second,
their work then was to expand the existing 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK,
attested to by the over 39 witnesses that saw it, so that it would appear
more like the damage was done to the head by a bullet that entered from
the rear. Of course, that bullet wound cannot be found in the current
'leaked' autopsy photos.
The leaked photos were a small subset of all the photos taken and they
weren't of the same quality as the originals. The medical examiners who
reviewed the autopsy using those photos saw more than enough to convince
them that JFK was shot twice from behind. But you go on ignoring that
because two techies with little to no experience in taking part in
autopsies of gunshot victims told a different story. That way you will
never have to deal with the truth of the assassination which is completely
at odds with what you want to believe happened.
Post by mainframetech
Expanding a hole in the head is really not anything difficult for
pathologists who regularly perform all kinds of procedures on dead bodies.
As Cyril Wecht observed, it would be impossible to do without it being
completely obvious.
Post by mainframetech
Later, Humes tried to make a joke in front of the gallery of admirals
generals and other dignitaries that were in the gallery at the scheduled
time, because through an event at the scheduled autopsy at 8:00pm, the
removal of the brain was far too easy, and Humes had to try and cover up
that they had taken it out earlier in the evening to search for bullets.
This is where your overly active imagination kicks in.
Post by mainframetech
When the brain was taken out, he stated that "it almost fell out in my
hands". To anyone with medical or autopsy knowledge, it meant that the
spinal chord had been previous severed, and the same for the optic nerves,
and certain important blood vessels. All these must be severed BEFORE you
can remove the brain.
Here's where you pretend you are knowledgeable about these things.
Post by mainframetech
As to the photos taken that night, you've been had. The photographers
that took many of the photos that night stated that when they found that
many of their photos were missing from the sets they took, they were
The review panels based their opinions on the photos and x-rays they did
see and what the saw was compelling proof that JFK had been shot twice
from behind.
Post by mainframetech
"Q: When you signed this document, Exhibit 78,
were you intending to either agree or disagree with
the conclusion reached in the second to last -
next to last sentence?
A: I told him that I disagreed with him, but
they said, "Sign it."
Q: And who is "they" who said, "Sign it"?
A: Captain Stover."
Q: Is the information in this statement correct
in regard to the total number of exposures that were
made?
A: It is hard to tell. I mean I don't remember
exactly, and there has been changes on here. So I
don't - and the deletion of the 35 millimeter. So now
I don't know. We was shown this and told to sign it
and that was it.
Stover was the Commander of the Bethesda Naval Medical School. He
ordered those men to sign off that all photos they took at the autopsy
were in the sets that were available, when in reality many were missing.
Show me where either man says the photos which the review panels used to
base their findings were fraudulent.
Post by mainframetech
So once again you've launched your vessel onto troubled waters and
gotten everything wrong as usual. You might want to stop being so afraid
of the facts and testimony in the ARRB files, and then you'd be up on what
happened.
You might want to realize like most of the conspiracy hobbyists of the
world figured out over 20 years ago that the ARRB files were a big nothing
burger.
mainframetech
2017-08-13 02:31:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Robert Turner
I was taking photographs from the TV, and of the Zapruder footage, and a
closer look using the Zoom facilities of my camera. Two figures in the
background seemed very odd, (who I later discovered were supposed to be
Jean Hill and Mary Moorman), and the one in blue looked as if 'she' was
taking a photograph with a camera at her face. But when you look closely,
'her' right hand looks very much like something made of metal or wood, and
coloured to look like flesh - and part of a frame of some kind. This made
me look more closely, and I now think that both of these figures have
weapons, and that one of them fired the fatal shot that killed the
www.robsdataservices.co.uk. (I hope to get some images with the best
detail available, (to go further down the road of 'proving' this), and if
anybody can help, please contact me...) Robert Turner
Robert, I think you are the first to consider that the head shot came from
the South side of Elm street. How could a weapon fired from there either
go around and strike JFK near his right temple, OR go around and strike
JFK in the back of the head?
No. Other kooks have suggested it before. The angles do not work and
there is not a good shooter location.
Who told you that JFK was shot in the right temple?
Yes Anthony, of course the angle doesn't work.
Interesting, I didn't know others have said the head-shot came from a
shooter on the other side of Elm Street. Good thing I said "I think" :-)
Nobody told me that JFK was shot in the right temple. I know that some
people believe that the head shot entered in that general area, while
others believe it entered the back of the head.
For those with no LN bias, it's easy to see the bullet hole in the
photo below. ENLARGE the photo and look at the right forehead just in the
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
The first impressions that people were announcing was that JFK was hit
by a bullet from forward of the limo. But the powers that be quickly got
on that one and pushed the idea that a bullet hit the BOH and that was
what made the 'back and to the left' movement of JFK. Many people bought
it too.
Chris
So you claim the team of doctors involved in the autopsy went through all
kinds of machinations, subterfuge, trickery, and manipulation to make
major alterations to the wounds, but forgot to check all the numerous
photos taken that night? All that work for nothing since not one person
involved in the conspiracy thought of that.
Obviously you haven't a clue what I "claim".
Does anybody?
Post by mainframetech
I will often state some
things though. Now, let's go through your ridiculous claim step by step.
First, All that work you incorrectly claim was done by the "team of
doctors" was false. There were only 2 "doctors" that performed the
clandestine work at 6:35pm on the body of JFK when it arrived at the
Bethesda morgue.
Your silliness stems from your belief that clandestine work was done.
Your foolishness and denial stems form your inability to accept
evidence that goes against you precious WCR. You've been shown by me the
2 comments from the two witnesses to the clandestine work, and one of them
was indeed kicked out when it must have dawned on the 2 prosectors that
they had company watching.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And you'll just have to deal with the fact that there
were 2 witnesses. Yep, 2 of 'em. One was Edward Reed, an X-ray
Technician, and Tom Robinson, a local mortician who arrived early. They
both sat in the gallery watched for a while as Humes and Boswell did their
work. At one point, the enlisted men sitting there were kicked out of the
morgue by the 'doctors' so they wouldn't see everything that was done.
If clandestine work was being done why would they have allowed the techies
to observe any of it?
They needed the technicians for searching the body for bullets and
fragments BEFORE the scheduled autopsy, so that none would be left for
others to see. When done they may have sat in the gallery as a normal
thing and it wasn't noticed until later. I've given the proof that Humes
tried to cover up what they did BEFORE the scheduled autopsy at 8:00pm
which showed that they were doing work that was supposed to be secret from
the world.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Robinson stayed for the duration. And later commented about the 'damage'
they had done to the body.
Why would Robinson and Reed have been allowed to observe clandestine work?
It's hard to argue it was clandestine if witnesses were allowed to observe
it.
Se above. You're repeating yourself.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Second, their work was divided into 2 sections. First, they searched
the body for bullets and fragments.
Which witness said that happened?
Both X-ray Technicians said that Humes and Boswell were using them to
search for bullets and fragments. If you had kept up with the files for
the case (in the ARRB) you would know these things.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That is known from the sworn
testimony of the X-ray Technicians that helped in that effort.
I'd love to see that quote. Of course I know I never will.
WRONG! You need to ask nicely, like most humans do.

No problem. I love to show you up like this. Here you are:

"Q: So, although you were not told why, it was
your understanding that the purpose of taking the
body X-rays was to locate a bullet. Would that be
fair?
A: Well from what I overheard in the
conversation, yes."

From: ARRB testimony of Edward Reed page 50
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Reed_10-21-97.pdf

And:

"Q: If the purpose of the X-rays was to locate
bullets or fragments, why would X-rays need to be
taken both before and after the removal of the
internal organs?
A: You must remember the confusion at that
time and that night. People were ordering this.
“Well, we should take some more there. We should
take some more of that.” It wasn’t just one person
doing it. And I’m just a E4. What I’m told to do,
I do.

Sworn ARRB testimony of Jerrol Custer, page 164
https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Second,
their work then was to expand the existing 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK,
attested to by the over 39 witnesses that saw it, so that it would appear
more like the damage was done to the head by a bullet that entered from
the rear. Of course, that bullet wound cannot be found in the current
'leaked' autopsy photos.
The leaked photos were a small subset of all the photos taken and they
weren't of the same quality as the originals. The medical examiners who
reviewed the autopsy using those photos saw more than enough to convince
them that JFK was shot twice from behind.
WRONG! That's how the medical panels were fooled. They weren't shown
the right photos that would have proved that the bullet stopped at the
pleura. We've been over this though, and you're repeating yourself again.
Post by bigdog
But you go on ignoring that
because two techies with little to no experience in taking part in
autopsies of gunshot victims told a different story. That way you will
never have to deal with the truth of the assassination which is completely
at odds with what you want to believe happened.
Oh stop your silly bullshit. You've had all that explained to you
before and you're still trying to use your old arguments which have been
discarded. Again,. NO ONE is depending on the medical expertise of the 2
Technologists.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Expanding a hole in the head is really not anything difficult for
pathologists who regularly perform all kinds of procedures on dead bodies.
As Cyril Wecht observed, it would be impossible to do without it being
completely obvious.
Wonderful Wecht was wrong, he's only human. And I imagine that some
medics could see the gimmicked body by just looking at the silly
triangular flap of bone that stuck out of the right side of the head. It
had all straight lines in it. And the missing part of the skull was
ridiculous when you looked at it, because a shot from behind wouldn't do
what was seen in the skull when Humes and Boswell were done with it.
They had little time and just whacked away and tried to take out the right
side of the skull so at least it would look a little like a shot from
behind did the damage.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Later, Humes tried to make a joke in front of the gallery of admirals
generals and other dignitaries that were in the gallery at the scheduled
time, because through an event at the scheduled autopsy at 8:00pm, the
removal of the brain was far too easy, and Humes had to try and cover up
that they had taken it out earlier in the evening to search for bullets.
This is where your overly active imagination kicks in.
WRONG! That was from comments from the witnesses at the autopsy.
They heard him say it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
When the brain was taken out, he stated that "it almost fell out in my
hands". To anyone with medical or autopsy knowledge, it meant that the
spinal chord had been previous severed, and the same for the optic nerves,
and certain important blood vessels. All these must be severed BEFORE you
can remove the brain.
Here's where you pretend you are knowledgeable about these things.
WRONG yet again! You'll never learn. I just explained what a person
who normally removes the brain said. I know approximately what had to be
done, but I used his experience to list the steps. So you come up looking
dumb again.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
As to the photos taken that night, you've been had. The photographers
that took many of the photos that night stated that when they found that
many of their photos were missing from the sets they took, they were
The review panels based their opinions on the photos and x-rays they did
see and what the saw was compelling proof that JFK had been shot twice
from behind.
How would you know what photos were compelling proof? Are you a
medical guru? They saw what was left of the photos and X-rays and thought
they would go with the AR since there was no photos that showed the truth.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
"Q: When you signed this document, Exhibit 78,
were you intending to either agree or disagree with
the conclusion reached in the second to last -
next to last sentence?
A: I told him that I disagreed with him, but
they said, "Sign it."
Q: And who is "they" who said, "Sign it"?
A: Captain Stover."
Q: Is the information in this statement correct
in regard to the total number of exposures that were
made?
A: It is hard to tell. I mean I don't remember
exactly, and there has been changes on here. So I
don't - and the deletion of the 35 millimeter. So now
I don't know. We was shown this and told to sign it
and that was it.
Stover was the Commander of the Bethesda Naval Medical School. He
ordered those men to sign off that all photos they took at the autopsy
were in the sets that were available, when in reality many were missing.
Show me where either man says the photos which the review panels used to
base their findings were fraudulent.
You're getting ridiculous again! Why would they show obvious errors to
the panels? By showing the true photos, or some that had been altered,
they could easily make them believe the story told falsely by the AR.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
So once again you've launched your vessel onto troubled waters and
gotten everything wrong as usual. You might want to stop being so afraid
of the facts and testimony in the ARRB files, and then you'd be up on what
happened.
You might want to realize like most of the conspiracy hobbyists of the
world figured out over 20 years ago that the ARRB files were a big nothing
burger.
That was your hope, but I (and others) have found that those ARRB
files contain many of the answers to the autopsy and the phony efforts of
the prosectors.

Chris
Jason Burke
2017-08-13 22:14:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Robert Turner
I was taking photographs from the TV, and of the Zapruder footage, and a
closer look using the Zoom facilities of my camera. Two figures in the
background seemed very odd, (who I later discovered were supposed to be
Jean Hill and Mary Moorman), and the one in blue looked as if 'she' was
taking a photograph with a camera at her face. But when you look closely,
'her' right hand looks very much like something made of metal or wood, and
coloured to look like flesh - and part of a frame of some kind. This made
me look more closely, and I now think that both of these figures have
weapons, and that one of them fired the fatal shot that killed the
www.robsdataservices.co.uk. (I hope to get some images with the best
detail available, (to go further down the road of 'proving' this), and if
anybody can help, please contact me...) Robert Turner
Robert, I think you are the first to consider that the head shot came from
the South side of Elm street. How could a weapon fired from there either
go around and strike JFK near his right temple, OR go around and strike
JFK in the back of the head?
No. Other kooks have suggested it before. The angles do not work and
there is not a good shooter location.
Who told you that JFK was shot in the right temple?
Yes Anthony, of course the angle doesn't work.
Interesting, I didn't know others have said the head-shot came from a
shooter on the other side of Elm Street. Good thing I said "I think" :-)
Nobody told me that JFK was shot in the right temple. I know that some
people believe that the head shot entered in that general area, while
others believe it entered the back of the head.
For those with no LN bias, it's easy to see the bullet hole in the
photo below. ENLARGE the photo and look at the right forehead just in the
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
The first impressions that people were announcing was that JFK was hit
by a bullet from forward of the limo. But the powers that be quickly got
on that one and pushed the idea that a bullet hit the BOH and that was
what made the 'back and to the left' movement of JFK. Many people bought
it too.
Chris
So you claim the team of doctors involved in the autopsy went through all
kinds of machinations, subterfuge, trickery, and manipulation to make
major alterations to the wounds, but forgot to check all the numerous
photos taken that night? All that work for nothing since not one person
involved in the conspiracy thought of that.
Obviously you haven't a clue what I "claim".
Does anybody?
Post by mainframetech
I will often state some
things though. Now, let's go through your ridiculous claim step by step.
First, All that work you incorrectly claim was done by the "team of
doctors" was false. There were only 2 "doctors" that performed the
clandestine work at 6:35pm on the body of JFK when it arrived at the
Bethesda morgue.
Your silliness stems from your belief that clandestine work was done.
Your foolishness and denial stems form your inability to accept
evidence that goes against you precious WCR. You've been shown by me the
2 comments from the two witnesses to the clandestine work, and one of them
was indeed kicked out when it must have dawned on the 2 prosectors that
they had company watching.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And you'll just have to deal with the fact that there
were 2 witnesses. Yep, 2 of 'em. One was Edward Reed, an X-ray
Technician, and Tom Robinson, a local mortician who arrived early. They
both sat in the gallery watched for a while as Humes and Boswell did their
work. At one point, the enlisted men sitting there were kicked out of the
morgue by the 'doctors' so they wouldn't see everything that was done.
If clandestine work was being done why would they have allowed the techies
to observe any of it?
They needed the technicians for searching the body for bullets and
fragments BEFORE the scheduled autopsy, so that none would be left for
others to see. When done they may have sat in the gallery as a normal
thing and it wasn't noticed until later. I've given the proof that Humes
tried to cover up what they did BEFORE the scheduled autopsy at 8:00pm
which showed that they were doing work that was supposed to be secret from
the world.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Robinson stayed for the duration. And later commented about the 'damage'
they had done to the body.
Why would Robinson and Reed have been allowed to observe clandestine work?
It's hard to argue it was clandestine if witnesses were allowed to observe
it.
Se above. You're repeating yourself.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Second, their work was divided into 2 sections. First, they searched
the body for bullets and fragments.
Which witness said that happened?
Both X-ray Technicians said that Humes and Boswell were using them to
search for bullets and fragments. If you had kept up with the files for
the case (in the ARRB) you would know these things.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That is known from the sworn
testimony of the X-ray Technicians that helped in that effort.
I'd love to see that quote. Of course I know I never will.
WRONG! You need to ask nicely, like most humans do.
"Q: So, although you were not told why, it was
your understanding that the purpose of taking the
body X-rays was to locate a bullet. Would that be
fair?
A: Well from what I overheard in the
conversation, yes."
From: ARRB testimony of Edward Reed page 50
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Reed_10-21-97.pdf
"Q: If the purpose of the X-rays was to locate
bullets or fragments, why would X-rays need to be
taken both before and after the removal of the
internal organs?
A: You must remember the confusion at that
time and that night. People were ordering this.
“Well, we should take some more there. We should
take some more of that.” It wasn’t just one person
doing it. And I’m just a E4. What I’m told to do,
I do.
Sworn ARRB testimony of Jerrol Custer, page 164
https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Second,
their work then was to expand the existing 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK,
attested to by the over 39 witnesses that saw it, so that it would appear
more like the damage was done to the head by a bullet that entered from
the rear. Of course, that bullet wound cannot be found in the current
'leaked' autopsy photos.
The leaked photos were a small subset of all the photos taken and they
weren't of the same quality as the originals. The medical examiners who
reviewed the autopsy using those photos saw more than enough to convince
them that JFK was shot twice from behind.
WRONG! That's how the medical panels were fooled. They weren't shown
the right photos that would have proved that the bullet stopped at the
pleura. We've been over this though, and you're repeating yourself again.
Post by bigdog
But you go on ignoring that
because two techies with little to no experience in taking part in
autopsies of gunshot victims told a different story. That way you will
never have to deal with the truth of the assassination which is completely
at odds with what you want to believe happened.
Oh stop your silly bullshit. You've had all that explained to you
before and you're still trying to use your old arguments which have been
discarded. Again,. NO ONE is depending on the medical expertise of the 2
Technologists.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Expanding a hole in the head is really not anything difficult for
pathologists who regularly perform all kinds of procedures on dead bodies.
As Cyril Wecht observed, it would be impossible to do without it being
completely obvious.
Wonderful Wecht was wrong, he's only human. And I imagine that some
medics could see the gimmicked body by just looking at the silly
triangular flap of bone that stuck out of the right side of the head. It
had all straight lines in it. And the missing part of the skull was
ridiculous when you looked at it, because a shot from behind wouldn't do
what was seen in the skull when Humes and Boswell were done with it.
They had little time and just whacked away and tried to take out the right
side of the skull so at least it would look a little like a shot from
behind did the damage.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Later, Humes tried to make a joke in front of the gallery of admirals
generals and other dignitaries that were in the gallery at the scheduled
time, because through an event at the scheduled autopsy at 8:00pm, the
removal of the brain was far too easy, and Humes had to try and cover up
that they had taken it out earlier in the evening to search for bullets.
This is where your overly active imagination kicks in.
WRONG! That was from comments from the witnesses at the autopsy.
They heard him say it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
When the brain was taken out, he stated that "it almost fell out in my
hands". To anyone with medical or autopsy knowledge, it meant that the
spinal chord had been previous severed, and the same for the optic nerves,
and certain important blood vessels. All these must be severed BEFORE you
can remove the brain.
Here's where you pretend you are knowledgeable about these things.
WRONG yet again! You'll never learn. I just explained what a person
who normally removes the brain said. I know approximately what had to be
done, but I used his experience to list the steps. So you come up looking
dumb again.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
As to the photos taken that night, you've been had. The photographers
that took many of the photos that night stated that when they found that
many of their photos were missing from the sets they took, they were
The review panels based their opinions on the photos and x-rays they did
see and what the saw was compelling proof that JFK had been shot twice
from behind.
How would you know what photos were compelling proof? Are you a
medical guru? They saw what was left of the photos and X-rays and thought
they would go with the AR since there was no photos that showed the truth.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
"Q: When you signed this document, Exhibit 78,
were you intending to either agree or disagree with
the conclusion reached in the second to last -
next to last sentence?
A: I told him that I disagreed with him, but
they said, "Sign it."
Q: And who is "they" who said, "Sign it"?
A: Captain Stover."
Q: Is the information in this statement correct
in regard to the total number of exposures that were
made?
A: It is hard to tell. I mean I don't remember
exactly, and there has been changes on here. So I
don't - and the deletion of the 35 millimeter. So now
I don't know. We was shown this and told to sign it
and that was it.
Stover was the Commander of the Bethesda Naval Medical School. He
ordered those men to sign off that all photos they took at the autopsy
were in the sets that were available, when in reality many were missing.
Show me where either man says the photos which the review panels used to
base their findings were fraudulent.
You're getting ridiculous again! Why would they show obvious errors to
the panels? By showing the true photos, or some that had been altered,
they could easily make them believe the story told falsely by the AR.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
So once again you've launched your vessel onto troubled waters and
gotten everything wrong as usual. You might want to stop being so afraid
of the facts and testimony in the ARRB files, and then you'd be up on what
happened.
You might want to realize like most of the conspiracy hobbyists of the
world figured out over 20 years ago that the ARRB files were a big nothing
burger.
That was your hope, but I (and others) have found that those ARRB
files contain many of the answers to the autopsy and the phony efforts of
the prosectors.
Chris
Mainframe / Chris. Still o-fer-jfk.
bigdog
2017-08-14 14:23:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Robert Turner
I was taking photographs from the TV, and of the Zapruder footage, and a
closer look using the Zoom facilities of my camera. Two figures in the
background seemed very odd, (who I later discovered were supposed to be
Jean Hill and Mary Moorman), and the one in blue looked as if 'she' was
taking a photograph with a camera at her face. But when you look closely,
'her' right hand looks very much like something made of metal or wood, and
coloured to look like flesh - and part of a frame of some kind. This made
me look more closely, and I now think that both of these figures have
weapons, and that one of them fired the fatal shot that killed the
www.robsdataservices.co.uk. (I hope to get some images with the best
detail available, (to go further down the road of 'proving' this), and if
anybody can help, please contact me...) Robert Turner
Robert, I think you are the first to consider that the head shot came from
the South side of Elm street. How could a weapon fired from there either
go around and strike JFK near his right temple, OR go around and strike
JFK in the back of the head?
No. Other kooks have suggested it before. The angles do not work and
there is not a good shooter location.
Who told you that JFK was shot in the right temple?
Yes Anthony, of course the angle doesn't work.
Interesting, I didn't know others have said the head-shot came from a
shooter on the other side of Elm Street. Good thing I said "I think" :-)
Nobody told me that JFK was shot in the right temple. I know that some
people believe that the head shot entered in that general area, while
others believe it entered the back of the head.
For those with no LN bias, it's easy to see the bullet hole in the
photo below. ENLARGE the photo and look at the right forehead just in the
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
The first impressions that people were announcing was that JFK was hit
by a bullet from forward of the limo. But the powers that be quickly got
on that one and pushed the idea that a bullet hit the BOH and that was
what made the 'back and to the left' movement of JFK. Many people bought
it too.
Chris
So you claim the team of doctors involved in the autopsy went through all
kinds of machinations, subterfuge, trickery, and manipulation to make
major alterations to the wounds, but forgot to check all the numerous
photos taken that night? All that work for nothing since not one person
involved in the conspiracy thought of that.
Obviously you haven't a clue what I "claim".
Does anybody?
Post by mainframetech
I will often state some
things though. Now, let's go through your ridiculous claim step by step.
First, All that work you incorrectly claim was done by the "team of
doctors" was false. There were only 2 "doctors" that performed the
clandestine work at 6:35pm on the body of JFK when it arrived at the
Bethesda morgue.
Your silliness stems from your belief that clandestine work was done.
Your foolishness and denial stems form your inability to accept
evidence that goes against you precious WCR.
There is no evidence that goes against my "precious WCR".
Post by mainframetech
You've been shown by me the
2 comments from the two witnesses to the clandestine work, and one of them
was indeed kicked out when it must have dawned on the 2 prosectors that
they had company watching.
What they saw was not clandestine work. It was the normal part of an
autopsy.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And you'll just have to deal with the fact that there
were 2 witnesses. Yep, 2 of 'em. One was Edward Reed, an X-ray
Technician, and Tom Robinson, a local mortician who arrived early. They
both sat in the gallery watched for a while as Humes and Boswell did their
work. At one point, the enlisted men sitting there were kicked out of the
morgue by the 'doctors' so they wouldn't see everything that was done.
If clandestine work was being done why would they have allowed the techies
to observe any of it?
They needed the technicians for searching the body for bullets and
fragments BEFORE the scheduled autopsy, so that none would be left for
others to see.
Why would they have needed the techies for that?
Post by mainframetech
When done they may have sat in the gallery as a normal
thing and it wasn't noticed until later. I've given the proof that Humes
tried to cover up what they did BEFORE the scheduled autopsy at 8:00pm
which showed that they were doing work that was supposed to be secret from
the world.
You've given your FUBAR reasoning which isn't by any stretch of the
imagination proof of anything.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Robinson stayed for the duration. And later commented about the 'damage'
they had done to the body.
Why would Robinson and Reed have been allowed to observe clandestine work?
It's hard to argue it was clandestine if witnesses were allowed to observe
it.
Se above. You're repeating yourself.
I saw above. It didn't make sense.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Second, their work was divided into 2 sections. First, they searched
the body for bullets and fragments.
Which witness said that happened?
Both X-ray Technicians said that Humes and Boswell were using them to
search for bullets and fragments. If you had kept up with the files for
the case (in the ARRB) you would know these things.
Searching the body for bullets would be a normal task for an autopsy on a
gunshot victim. Now tell us where there is evidence they found any other
than the tiny particles in the cranium.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That is known from the sworn
testimony of the X-ray Technicians that helped in that effort.
I'd love to see that quote. Of course I know I never will.
WRONG! You need to ask nicely, like most humans do.
"Q: So, although you were not told why, it was
your understanding that the purpose of taking the
body X-rays was to locate a bullet. Would that be
fair?
A: Well from what I overheard in the
conversation, yes."
It would have been nice if you had cited the person who said this. In any
case this would be a normal procedure to try to locate bullets inside the
body of a gunshot victim. They didn't find any.
Post by mainframetech
From: ARRB testimony of Edward Reed page 50
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Reed_10-21-97.pdf
"Q: If the purpose of the X-rays was to locate
bullets or fragments, why would X-rays need to be
taken both before and after the removal of the
internal organs?
A: You must remember the confusion at that
time and that night. People were ordering this.
“Well, we should take some more there. We should
take some more of that.” It wasn’t just one person
doing it. And I’m just a E4. What I’m told to do,
I do.
The confusions stemmed from the fact they couldn't find any bullets in the
body yet they couldn't find an exit for the bullet that entered in the
back which naturally was puzzling to them. Once they realized that the
tracheostomy had been performed over the bullet wound in the throat and
they saw the bullet path through the strap muscles and the damaged trachea
the confusion cleared up. They had their exit wound.
Post by mainframetech
Sworn ARRB testimony of Jerrol Custer, page 164
https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Second,
their work then was to expand the existing 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK,
attested to by the over 39 witnesses that saw it, so that it would appear
more like the damage was done to the head by a bullet that entered from
the rear. Of course, that bullet wound cannot be found in the current
'leaked' autopsy photos.
The leaked photos were a small subset of all the photos taken and they
weren't of the same quality as the originals. The medical examiners who
reviewed the autopsy using those photos saw more than enough to convince
them that JFK was shot twice from behind.
WRONG! That's how the medical panels were fooled.
Just because you have been fooled is no reason to think competent
professionals were.
Post by mainframetech
They weren't shown
the right photos that would have proved that the bullet stopped at the
pleura. We've been over this though, and you're repeating yourself again.
How do you know what "the right photos" showed? You haven't seen anything
except the small number of photos that have been leaked to the public and
those were poor quality photos as compared to the originals which the
review panels were able to see.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
But you go on ignoring that
because two techies with little to no experience in taking part in
autopsies of gunshot victims told a different story. That way you will
never have to deal with the truth of the assassination which is completely
at odds with what you want to believe happened.
Oh stop your silly bullshit. You've had all that explained to you
before and you're still trying to use your old arguments which have been
discarded. Again,. NO ONE is depending on the medical expertise of the 2
Technologists.
None of your explanations have made any sense. They reflect nothing more
than your own ignorance of the facts. You are indeed relying on the
statements of the two techies as well as your own FUBAR analysis since
there is nothing else that supports the things you choose to believe.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Expanding a hole in the head is really not anything difficult for
pathologists who regularly perform all kinds of procedures on dead bodies.
As Cyril Wecht observed, it would be impossible to do without it being
completely obvious.
Wonderful Wecht was wrong, he's only human.
So are you. The difference is he is a human with expertise in the area of
forensic pathology.
Post by mainframetech
And I imagine that some
medics could see the gimmicked body by just looking at the silly
triangular flap of bone that stuck out of the right side of the head. It
had all straight lines in it. And the missing part of the skull was
ridiculous when you looked at it, because a shot from behind wouldn't do
what was seen in the skull when Humes and Boswell were done with it.
Here's where you put your lack of knowledge on full display.
Post by mainframetech
They had little time and just whacked away and tried to take out the right
side of the skull so at least it would look a little like a shot from
behind did the damage.
Here's wereh you put your overly active imagination on full display.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Later, Humes tried to make a joke in front of the gallery of admirals
generals and other dignitaries that were in the gallery at the scheduled
time, because through an event at the scheduled autopsy at 8:00pm, the
removal of the brain was far too easy, and Humes had to try and cover up
that they had taken it out earlier in the evening to search for bullets.
This is where your overly active imagination kicks in.
WRONG! That was from comments from the witnesses at the autopsy.
They heard him say it.
Other than you, who said Humes tried to make a joke?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
When the brain was taken out, he stated that "it almost fell out in my
hands". To anyone with medical or autopsy knowledge, it meant that the
spinal chord had been previous severed, and the same for the optic nerves,
and certain important blood vessels. All these must be severed BEFORE you
can remove the brain.
Here's where you pretend you are knowledgeable about these things.
WRONG yet again! You'll never learn. I just explained what a person
who normally removes the brain said. I know approximately what had to be
done, but I used his experience to list the steps. So you come up looking
dumb again.
All you gave shown is that a task normally performed by the techies was
performed by the pathologists. Given who the victim was, it is not
surprising that the pathologists would take a more active role than
normal.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
As to the photos taken that night, you've been had. The photographers
that took many of the photos that night stated that when they found that
many of their photos were missing from the sets they took, they were
The review panels based their opinions on the photos and x-rays they did
see and what the saw was compelling proof that JFK had been shot twice
from behind.
How would you know what photos were compelling proof?
The review panels told us.
Post by mainframetech
Are you a
medical guru?
No, and I'm smart enough to know that. I'm also smart enough to trust the
opinions of people who are experts in this field when they have seen far
more than I have, know far more than I do, and are unanimous in their
opinions. You on the other hand think you are so much smarter than they
were.
Post by mainframetech
They saw what was left of the photos and X-rays and thought
they would go with the AR since there was no photos that showed the truth.
You haven't seen what they saw. You just imagine that you can figure out
more by looking at one photo and listening to the opinions of a couple
techies than teams of some of the most highly regarded medical examiners
in the country who saw far more of the medical evidence than you ever have
or ever will.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
"Q: When you signed this document, Exhibit 78,
were you intending to either agree or disagree with
the conclusion reached in the second to last -
next to last sentence?
A: I told him that I disagreed with him, but
they said, "Sign it."
Q: And who is "they" who said, "Sign it"?
A: Captain Stover."
Q: Is the information in this statement correct
in regard to the total number of exposures that were
made?
A: It is hard to tell. I mean I don't remember
exactly, and there has been changes on here. So I
don't - and the deletion of the 35 millimeter. So now
I don't know. We was shown this and told to sign it
and that was it.
Stover was the Commander of the Bethesda Naval Medical School. He
ordered those men to sign off that all photos they took at the autopsy
were in the sets that were available, when in reality many were missing.
Show me where either man says the photos which the review panels used to
base their findings were fraudulent.
You're getting ridiculous again! Why would they show obvious errors to
the panels? By showing the true photos, or some that had been altered,
they could easily make them believe the story told falsely by the AR.
You have offered no evidence that any of the photos were altered. You have
simply assumed that.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
So once again you've launched your vessel onto troubled waters and
gotten everything wrong as usual. You might want to stop being so afraid
of the facts and testimony in the ARRB files, and then you'd be up on what
happened.
You might want to realize like most of the conspiracy hobbyists of the
world figured out over 20 years ago that the ARRB files were a big nothing
burger.
That was your hope, but I (and others) have found that those ARRB
files contain many of the answers to the autopsy and the phony efforts of
the prosectors.
If there was anything earth shaking in the ARRB files it would have shook
up the world 20 years ago. It didn't.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-14 23:43:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Robert Turner
I was taking photographs from the TV, and of the Zapruder footage, and a
closer look using the Zoom facilities of my camera. Two figures in the
background seemed very odd, (who I later discovered were supposed to be
Jean Hill and Mary Moorman), and the one in blue looked as if 'she' was
taking a photograph with a camera at her face. But when you look closely,
'her' right hand looks very much like something made of metal or wood, and
coloured to look like flesh - and part of a frame of some kind. This made
me look more closely, and I now think that both of these figures have
weapons, and that one of them fired the fatal shot that killed the
www.robsdataservices.co.uk. (I hope to get some images with the best
detail available, (to go further down the road of 'proving' this), and if
anybody can help, please contact me...) Robert Turner
Robert, I think you are the first to consider that the head shot came from
the South side of Elm street. How could a weapon fired from there either
go around and strike JFK near his right temple, OR go around and strike
JFK in the back of the head?
No. Other kooks have suggested it before. The angles do not work and
there is not a good shooter location.
Who told you that JFK was shot in the right temple?
Yes Anthony, of course the angle doesn't work.
Interesting, I didn't know others have said the head-shot came from a
shooter on the other side of Elm Street. Good thing I said "I think" :-)
Nobody told me that JFK was shot in the right temple. I know that some
people believe that the head shot entered in that general area, while
others believe it entered the back of the head.
For those with no LN bias, it's easy to see the bullet hole in the
photo below. ENLARGE the photo and look at the right forehead just in the
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
The first impressions that people were announcing was that JFK was hit
by a bullet from forward of the limo. But the powers that be quickly got
on that one and pushed the idea that a bullet hit the BOH and that was
what made the 'back and to the left' movement of JFK. Many people bought
it too.
Chris
So you claim the team of doctors involved in the autopsy went through all
kinds of machinations, subterfuge, trickery, and manipulation to make
major alterations to the wounds, but forgot to check all the numerous
photos taken that night? All that work for nothing since not one person
involved in the conspiracy thought of that.
Obviously you haven't a clue what I "claim".
Does anybody?
Post by mainframetech
I will often state some
things though. Now, let's go through your ridiculous claim step by step.
First, All that work you incorrectly claim was done by the "team of
doctors" was false. There were only 2 "doctors" that performed the
clandestine work at 6:35pm on the body of JFK when it arrived at the
Bethesda morgue.
Your silliness stems from your belief that clandestine work was done.
Your foolishness and denial stems form your inability to accept
evidence that goes against you precious WCR.
There is no evidence that goes against my "precious WCR".
Post by mainframetech
You've been shown by me the
2 comments from the two witnesses to the clandestine work, and one of them
was indeed kicked out when it must have dawned on the 2 prosectors that
they had company watching.
What they saw was not clandestine work. It was the normal part of an
autopsy.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And you'll just have to deal with the fact that there
were 2 witnesses. Yep, 2 of 'em. One was Edward Reed, an X-ray
Technician, and Tom Robinson, a local mortician who arrived early. They
both sat in the gallery watched for a while as Humes and Boswell did their
work. At one point, the enlisted men sitting there were kicked out of the
morgue by the 'doctors' so they wouldn't see everything that was done.
If clandestine work was being done why would they have allowed the techies
to observe any of it?
They needed the technicians for searching the body for bullets and
fragments BEFORE the scheduled autopsy, so that none would be left for
others to see.
Why would they have needed the techies for that?
Post by mainframetech
When done they may have sat in the gallery as a normal
thing and it wasn't noticed until later. I've given the proof that Humes
tried to cover up what they did BEFORE the scheduled autopsy at 8:00pm
which showed that they were doing work that was supposed to be secret from
the world.
You've given your FUBAR reasoning which isn't by any stretch of the
imagination proof of anything.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Robinson stayed for the duration. And later commented about the 'damage'
they had done to the body.
Why would Robinson and Reed have been allowed to observe clandestine work?
It's hard to argue it was clandestine if witnesses were allowed to observe
it.
Se above. You're repeating yourself.
I saw above. It didn't make sense.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Second, their work was divided into 2 sections. First, they searched
the body for bullets and fragments.
Which witness said that happened?
Both X-ray Technicians said that Humes and Boswell were using them to
search for bullets and fragments. If you had kept up with the files for
the case (in the ARRB) you would know these things.
Searching the body for bullets would be a normal task for an autopsy on a
gunshot victim. Now tell us where there is evidence they found any other
than the tiny particles in the cranium.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That is known from the sworn
testimony of the X-ray Technicians that helped in that effort.
I'd love to see that quote. Of course I know I never will.
WRONG! You need to ask nicely, like most humans do.
"Q: So, although you were not told why, it was
your understanding that the purpose of taking the
body X-rays was to locate a bullet. Would that be
fair?
A: Well from what I overheard in the
conversation, yes."
It would have been nice if you had cited the person who said this. In any
case this would be a normal procedure to try to locate bullets inside the
body of a gunshot victim. They didn't find any.
Post by mainframetech
From: ARRB testimony of Edward Reed page 50
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Reed_10-21-97.pdf
"Q: If the purpose of the X-rays was to locate
bullets or fragments, why would X-rays need to be
taken both before and after the removal of the
internal organs?
A: You must remember the confusion at that
time and that night. People were ordering this.
???Well, we should take some more there. We should
take some more of that.??? It wasn???t just one person
doing it. And I???m just a E4. What I???m told to do,
I do.
The confusions stemmed from the fact they couldn't find any bullets in the
body yet they couldn't find an exit for the bullet that entered in the
back which naturally was puzzling to them. Once they realized that the
tracheostomy had been performed over the bullet wound in the throat and
they saw the bullet path through the strap muscles and the damaged trachea
the confusion cleared up. They had their exit wound.
Post by mainframetech
Sworn ARRB testimony of Jerrol Custer, page 164
https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Second,
their work then was to expand the existing 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK,
attested to by the over 39 witnesses that saw it, so that it would appear
more like the damage was done to the head by a bullet that entered from
the rear. Of course, that bullet wound cannot be found in the current
'leaked' autopsy photos.
The leaked photos were a small subset of all the photos taken and they
weren't of the same quality as the originals. The medical examiners who
reviewed the autopsy using those photos saw more than enough to convince
them that JFK was shot twice from behind.
WRONG! That's how the medical panels were fooled.
Just because you have been fooled is no reason to think competent
professionals were.
Post by mainframetech
They weren't shown
the right photos that would have proved that the bullet stopped at the
pleura. We've been over this though, and you're repeating yourself again.
How do you know what "the right photos" showed? You haven't seen anything
except the small number of photos that have been leaked to the public and
those were poor quality photos as compared to the originals which the
review panels were able to see.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
But you go on ignoring that
because two techies with little to no experience in taking part in
autopsies of gunshot victims told a different story. That way you will
never have to deal with the truth of the assassination which is completely
at odds with what you want to believe happened.
Oh stop your silly bullshit. You've had all that explained to you
before and you're still trying to use your old arguments which have been
discarded. Again,. NO ONE is depending on the medical expertise of the 2
Technologists.
None of your explanations have made any sense. They reflect nothing more
than your own ignorance of the facts. You are indeed relying on the
statements of the two techies as well as your own FUBAR analysis since
there is nothing else that supports the things you choose to believe.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Expanding a hole in the head is really not anything difficult for
pathologists who regularly perform all kinds of procedures on dead bodies.
As Cyril Wecht observed, it would be impossible to do without it being
completely obvious.
Wonderful Wecht was wrong, he's only human.
So are you. The difference is he is a human with expertise in the area of
forensic pathology.
Post by mainframetech
And I imagine that some
medics could see the gimmicked body by just looking at the silly
triangular flap of bone that stuck out of the right side of the head. It
had all straight lines in it. And the missing part of the skull was
ridiculous when you looked at it, because a shot from behind wouldn't do
what was seen in the skull when Humes and Boswell were done with it.
Here's where you put your lack of knowledge on full display.
Post by mainframetech
They had little time and just whacked away and tried to take out the right
side of the skull so at least it would look a little like a shot from
behind did the damage.
Here's wereh you put your overly active imagination on full display.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Later, Humes tried to make a joke in front of the gallery of admirals
generals and other dignitaries that were in the gallery at the scheduled
time, because through an event at the scheduled autopsy at 8:00pm, the
removal of the brain was far too easy, and Humes had to try and cover up
that they had taken it out earlier in the evening to search for bullets.
This is where your overly active imagination kicks in.
WRONG! That was from comments from the witnesses at the autopsy.
They heard him say it.
Other than you, who said Humes tried to make a joke?
Was the ICE BULLET a joke?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
When the brain was taken out, he stated that "it almost fell out in my
hands". To anyone with medical or autopsy knowledge, it meant that the
spinal chord had been previous severed, and the same for the optic nerves,
and certain important blood vessels. All these must be severed BEFORE you
can remove the brain.
Here's where you pretend you are knowledgeable about these things.
WRONG yet again! You'll never learn. I just explained what a person
who normally removes the brain said. I know approximately what had to be
done, but I used his experience to list the steps. So you come up looking
dumb again.
All you gave shown is that a task normally performed by the techies was
performed by the pathologists. Given who the victim was, it is not
surprising that the pathologists would take a more active role than
normal.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
As to the photos taken that night, you've been had. The photographers
that took many of the photos that night stated that when they found that
many of their photos were missing from the sets they took, they were
The review panels based their opinions on the photos and x-rays they did
see and what the saw was compelling proof that JFK had been shot twice
from behind.
How would you know what photos were compelling proof?
The review panels told us.
Post by mainframetech
Are you a
medical guru?
No, and I'm smart enough to know that. I'm also smart enough to trust the
opinions of people who are experts in this field when they have seen far
more than I have, know far more than I do, and are unanimous in their
opinions. You on the other hand think you are so much smarter than they
were.
Post by mainframetech
They saw what was left of the photos and X-rays and thought
they would go with the AR since there was no photos that showed the truth.
You haven't seen what they saw. You just imagine that you can figure out
more by looking at one photo and listening to the opinions of a couple
techies than teams of some of the most highly regarded medical examiners
in the country who saw far more of the medical evidence than you ever have
or ever will.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
"Q: When you signed this document, Exhibit 78,
were you intending to either agree or disagree with
the conclusion reached in the second to last -
next to last sentence?
A: I told him that I disagreed with him, but
they said, "Sign it."
Q: And who is "they" who said, "Sign it"?
A: Captain Stover."
Q: Is the information in this statement correct
in regard to the total number of exposures that were
made?
A: It is hard to tell. I mean I don't remember
exactly, and there has been changes on here. So I
don't - and the deletion of the 35 millimeter. So now
I don't know. We was shown this and told to sign it
and that was it.
Stover was the Commander of the Bethesda Naval Medical School. He
ordered those men to sign off that all photos they took at the autopsy
were in the sets that were available, when in reality many were missing.
Show me where either man says the photos which the review panels used to
base their findings were fraudulent.
You're getting ridiculous again! Why would they show obvious errors to
the panels? By showing the true photos, or some that had been altered,
they could easily make them believe the story told falsely by the AR.
You have offered no evidence that any of the photos were altered. You have
simply assumed that.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
So once again you've launched your vessel onto troubled waters and
gotten everything wrong as usual. You might want to stop being so afraid
of the facts and testimony in the ARRB files, and then you'd be up on what
happened.
You might want to realize like most of the conspiracy hobbyists of the
world figured out over 20 years ago that the ARRB files were a big nothing
burger.
That was your hope, but I (and others) have found that those ARRB
files contain many of the answers to the autopsy and the phony efforts of
the prosectors.
If there was anything earth shaking in the ARRB files it would have shook
up the world 20 years ago. It didn't.
mainframetech
2017-08-15 19:01:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Robert Turner
I was taking photographs from the TV, and of the Zapruder footage, and a
closer look using the Zoom facilities of my camera. Two figures in the
background seemed very odd, (who I later discovered were supposed to be
Jean Hill and Mary Moorman), and the one in blue looked as if 'she' was
taking a photograph with a camera at her face. But when you look closely,
'her' right hand looks very much like something made of metal or wood, and
coloured to look like flesh - and part of a frame of some kind. This made
me look more closely, and I now think that both of these figures have
weapons, and that one of them fired the fatal shot that killed the
www.robsdataservices.co.uk. (I hope to get some images with the best
detail available, (to go further down the road of 'proving' this), and if
anybody can help, please contact me...) Robert Turner
Robert, I think you are the first to consider that the head shot came from
the South side of Elm street. How could a weapon fired from there either
go around and strike JFK near his right temple, OR go around and strike
JFK in the back of the head?
No. Other kooks have suggested it before. The angles do not work and
there is not a good shooter location.
Who told you that JFK was shot in the right temple?
Yes Anthony, of course the angle doesn't work.
Interesting, I didn't know others have said the head-shot came from a
shooter on the other side of Elm Street. Good thing I said "I think" :-)
Nobody told me that JFK was shot in the right temple. I know that some
people believe that the head shot entered in that general area, while
others believe it entered the back of the head.
For those with no LN bias, it's easy to see the bullet hole in the
photo below. ENLARGE the photo and look at the right forehead just in the
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
The first impressions that people were announcing was that JFK was hit
by a bullet from forward of the limo. But the powers that be quickly got
on that one and pushed the idea that a bullet hit the BOH and that was
what made the 'back and to the left' movement of JFK. Many people bought
it too.
Chris
So you claim the team of doctors involved in the autopsy went through all
kinds of machinations, subterfuge, trickery, and manipulation to make
major alterations to the wounds, but forgot to check all the numerous
photos taken that night? All that work for nothing since not one person
involved in the conspiracy thought of that.
Obviously you haven't a clue what I "claim".
Does anybody?
Post by mainframetech
I will often state some
things though. Now, let's go through your ridiculous claim step by step.
First, All that work you incorrectly claim was done by the "team of
doctors" was false. There were only 2 "doctors" that performed the
clandestine work at 6:35pm on the body of JFK when it arrived at the
Bethesda morgue.
Your silliness stems from your belief that clandestine work was done.
Your foolishness and denial stems form your inability to accept
evidence that goes against you precious WCR.
There is no evidence that goes against my "precious WCR".
Post by mainframetech
You've been shown by me the
2 comments from the two witnesses to the clandestine work, and one of them
was indeed kicked out when it must have dawned on the 2 prosectors that
they had company watching.
What they saw was not clandestine work. It was the normal part of an
autopsy.
You still cling to that forlorn hope? You have been shown that the
autopsy was scheduled for 8:00pm. At 6:35pm there was no one in the
gallery except the X-ray technicians and Tom Robinson. They would not do
an autopsy until the gallery had been filled with the admirals and
generals and other important visitors. Why would Humes try to cover up
that the brain had been removed earlier in the evening, at the real
autopsy?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And you'll just have to deal with the fact that there
were 2 witnesses. Yep, 2 of 'em. One was Edward Reed, an X-ray
Technician, and Tom Robinson, a local mortician who arrived early. They
both sat in the gallery watched for a while as Humes and Boswell did their
work. At one point, the enlisted men sitting there were kicked out of the
morgue by the 'doctors' so they wouldn't see everything that was done.
If clandestine work was being done why would they have allowed the techies
to observe any of it?
They needed the technicians for searching the body for bullets and
fragments BEFORE the scheduled autopsy, so that none would be left for
others to see.
Why would they have needed the techies for that?
Because they were trained in the use of the X-ray machine and taking
films of the body to find bullets.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
When done they may have sat in the gallery as a normal
thing and it wasn't noticed until later. I've given the proof that Humes
tried to cover up what they did BEFORE the scheduled autopsy at 8:00pm
which showed that they were doing work that was supposed to be secret from
the world.
You've given your FUBAR reasoning which isn't by any stretch of the
imagination proof of anything.
That opinion means nothing. Prove your statements.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Robinson stayed for the duration. And later commented about the 'damage'
they had done to the body.
Why would Robinson and Reed have been allowed to observe clandestine work?
It's hard to argue it was clandestine if witnesses were allowed to observe
it.
Se above. You're repeating yourself.
I saw above. It didn't make sense.
That's often your problem.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Second, their work was divided into 2 sections. First, they searched
the body for bullets and fragments.
Which witness said that happened?
Both X-ray Technicians said that Humes and Boswell were using them to
search for bullets and fragments. If you had kept up with the files for
the case (in the ARRB) you would know these things.
Searching the body for bullets would be a normal task for an autopsy on a
gunshot victim. Now tell us where there is evidence they found any other
than the tiny particles in the cranium.
The finding of bullets in the body was not a fact for general
distribution. If they found them they would have disposed of them. That
would be the orders they received BEFORE the body arrived in the SHIPPING
casket. However, there is suggestiveness in the gash at the throat where
the tracheotomy was done. It was usually done with a minimum of cutting,
and done cleanly, yet by the time the body was in the real autopsy, the
throat had a large messy gash. A guess would be that Humes and Boswell in
looking for bullets, dug around in the throat wound looking for the bullet
that struck from the front and removed it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That is known from the sworn
testimony of the X-ray Technicians that helped in that effort.
I'd love to see that quote. Of course I know I never will.
WRONG! You need to ask nicely, like most humans do.
"Q: So, although you were not told why, it was
your understanding that the purpose of taking the
body X-rays was to locate a bullet. Would that be
fair?
A: Well from what I overheard in the
conversation, yes."
It would have been nice if you had cited the person who said this. In any
case this would be a normal procedure to try to locate bullets inside the
body of a gunshot victim. They didn't find any.
They were not in a "normal procedure", they were part of clandestine
work on the body, long BEFORE the scheduled autopsy. If you had read down
just a few lines, you would have seen the person whose testimony it was.
Cite and link both supplied.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
From: ARRB testimony of Edward Reed page 50
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Reed_10-21-97.pdf
"Q: If the purpose of the X-rays was to locate
bullets or fragments, why would X-rays need to be
taken both before and after the removal of the
internal organs?
A: You must remember the confusion at that
time and that night. People were ordering this.
“Well, we should take some more there. We should
take some more of that.” It wasn’t just one person
doing it. And I’m just a E4. What I’m told to do,
I do.
Sworn ARRB testimony of Jerrol Custer, page 164
https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf
The confusions stemmed from the fact they couldn't find any bullets in the
body yet they couldn't find an exit for the bullet that entered in the
back which naturally was puzzling to them. Once they realized that the
tracheostomy had been performed over the bullet wound in the throat and
they saw the bullet path through the strap muscles and the damaged trachea
the confusion cleared up. They had their exit wound.
At this point Finck was not present, which would occur when the real
autopsy happened at 8:00pm. Finck was among the prosectors when they ALL
said "there's NO EXIT" for the bullet from the body. Amnd it was easy to
determine that there was a tracheotomy done over the bullet wound, since
they probably dug around for the bullet and probably found it. Of course,
they couldn't admit that.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Second,
their work then was to expand the existing 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK,
attested to by the over 39 witnesses that saw it, so that it would appear
more like the damage was done to the head by a bullet that entered from
the rear. Of course, that bullet wound cannot be found in the current
'leaked' autopsy photos.
The leaked photos were a small subset of all the photos taken and they
weren't of the same quality as the originals. The medical examiners who
reviewed the autopsy using those photos saw more than enough to convince
them that JFK was shot twice from behind.
WRONG! That's how the medical panels were fooled.
Just because you have been fooled is no reason to think competent
professionals were.
Some (at least) of the 'leaked' photos were altered. An example is the
BOH photo. You won't find a bullet hole there! Yet the Ida Dox drawing
of that photo had a bullet hole that was obvious that the photo did NOT
have. In at least one case the drawings were shown to the medical panels
because the family supposedly didn't want anyone to see the real JFK
photos. It's so funny that the photo has no bullet hole in it, but the
drawing (shown to the panels) of it does! Of course they would think a
bullet from behind hit JFK. As well, as you also know, there were many
photo missing as per the photographers.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They weren't shown
the right photos that would have proved that the bullet stopped at the
pleura. We've been over this though, and you're repeating yourself again.
How do you know what "the right photos" showed? You haven't seen anything
except the small number of photos that have been leaked to the public and
those were poor quality photos as compared to the originals which the
review panels were able to see.
WRONG! They weren't such poor quality as much as they were faked, or
at least some of them. And I know that if the 'right' photos had been
shown to them their conclusions would be very different. Simple.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
But you go on ignoring that
because two techies with little to no experience in taking part in
autopsies of gunshot victims told a different story. That way you will
never have to deal with the truth of the assassination which is completely
at odds with what you want to believe happened.
Oh stop your silly bullshit. You've had all that explained to you
before and you're still trying to use your old arguments which have been
discarded. Again, NO ONE is depending on the medical expertise of the 2
Technologists.
None of your explanations have made any sense. They reflect nothing more
than your own ignorance of the facts. You are indeed relying on the
statements of the two techies as well as your own FUBAR analysis since
there is nothing else that supports the things you choose to believe.
I'm relying on the statements of the Technologists as to what they saw,
NOT what their medical opinion was. Get it through your head!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Expanding a hole in the head is really not anything difficult for
pathologists who regularly perform all kinds of procedures on dead bodies.
As Cyril Wecht observed, it would be impossible to do without it being
completely obvious.
Wonderful Wecht was wrong, he's only human.
So are you. The difference is he is a human with expertise in the area of
forensic pathology.
Post by mainframetech
And I imagine that some
medics could see the gimmicked body by just looking at the silly
triangular flap of bone that stuck out of the right side of the head. It
had all straight lines in it. And the missing part of the skull was
ridiculous when you looked at it, because a shot from behind wouldn't do
what was seen in the skull when Humes and Boswell were done with it.
Here's where you put your lack of knowledge on full display.
Or I show you up for all your false information.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They had little time and just whacked away and tried to take out the right
side of the skull so at least it would look a little like a shot from
behind did the damage.
Here's wereh you put your overly active imagination on full display.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Later, Humes tried to make a joke in front of the gallery of admirals
generals and other dignitaries that were in the gallery at the scheduled
time, because through an event at the scheduled autopsy at 8:00pm, the
removal of the brain was far too easy, and Humes had to try and cover up
that they had taken it out earlier in the evening to search for bullets.
This is where your overly active imagination kicks in.
WRONG! That was from comments from the witnesses at the autopsy.
They heard him say it.
Other than you, who said Humes tried to make a joke?
His comment at that point in the autopsy, when he was lifting out the
brain had to be an attempt at humor, since the brain did indeed 'fall out
into his hands' because of the clandestine work they did earlier in the
evening. Here's an interview of James Jenkins, Technologist:

"THE CONDITION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY’S BRAIN: Jenkins stated that
the standard incisions in the cranium required to remove the brain---a
“skull cap” (his term for a craniotomy)---were not done,
because they were not necessary. He thought this might be explained by
prior incisions, meaning that some surgery had been done prior to the
autopsy. He recalled that the damage to the top of the cranium was much
more extensive than the damage to the brain itself, which he found
unusual. Jenkins recalled Dr. Boswell asking if there had been surgery at
Parkland Hospital. He recalled Dr. Humes saying: “The brain fell
out in my hands,” as he removed the brain from the body."

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



Jenkins thought there might have been prior surgery based on the
condition of the head. So he saw that, and he also heard Humes make the
stupid statement trying to laugh away that things weren't right with the
brain coming out.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
When the brain was taken out, he stated that "it almost fell out in my
hands". To anyone with medical or autopsy knowledge, it meant that the
spinal chord had been previous severed, and the same for the optic nerves,
and certain important blood vessels. All these must be severed BEFORE you
can remove the brain.
Here's where you pretend you are knowledgeable about these things.
WRONG yet again! You'll never learn. I just explained what a person
who normally removes the brain said. I know approximately what had to be
done, but I used his experience to list the steps. So you come up looking
dumb again.
All you gave shown is that a task normally performed by the techies was
performed by the pathologists. Given who the victim was, it is not
surprising that the pathologists would take a more active role than
normal.
They took that role twice. When they were doing their clandestine work,
and later during the autopsy when Humes faked taking out the brain. When
they took out the brain the first time, the technologists that normally
removed the brain were not present because it was not the autopsy.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
As to the photos taken that night, you've been had. The photographers
that took many of the photos that night stated that when they found that
many of their photos were missing from the sets they took, they were
The review panels based their opinions on the photos and x-rays they did
see and what the saw was compelling proof that JFK had been shot twice
from behind.
How would you know what photos were compelling proof?
The review panels told us.
Post by mainframetech
Are you a
medical guru?
No, and I'm smart enough to know that. I'm also smart enough to trust the
opinions of people who are experts in this field when they have seen far
more than I have, know far more than I do, and are unanimous in their
opinions. You on the other hand think you are so much smarter than they
were.
You've been told a basic fact and you keep pretending you didn't know
any better. The panels could only give a conclusion based on what they
saw. If certain evidence wasn't shown to them, they could not make a
proper conclusion. If they could not interview certain personnel at
Bethesda, they could not make proper conclusions.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They saw what was left of the photos and X-rays and thought
they would go with the AR since there was no photos that showed the truth.
You haven't seen what they saw. You just imagine that you can figure out
more by looking at one photo and listening to the opinions of a couple
techies than teams of some of the most highly regarded medical examiners
in the country who saw far more of the medical evidence than you ever have
or ever will.
WRONG! Once again you ignore simple logic. If the panels could not
see inside the body with the organs removed, and if they could not
interview the Technologists, they could not give a reasonable conclusion.
Simple logic that seems to escape you time and again. You just keep
repeating the sale old mistake over and over. It just does not mater how
much expertise they had in their fields. If they didn't see the right
photos and talk to the right people, they could not make a correct
conclusion. They cold only echo the AR.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
"Q: When you signed this document, Exhibit 78,
were you intending to either agree or disagree with
the conclusion reached in the second to last -
next to last sentence?
A: I told him that I disagreed with him, but
they said, "Sign it."
Q: And who is "they" who said, "Sign it"?
A: Captain Stover."
Q: Is the information in this statement correct
in regard to the total number of exposures that were
made?
A: It is hard to tell. I mean I don't remember
exactly, and there has been changes on here. So I
don't - and the deletion of the 35 millimeter. So now
I don't know. We was shown this and told to sign it
and that was it.
Stover was the Commander of the Bethesda Naval Medical School. He
ordered those men to sign off that all photos they took at the autopsy
were in the sets that were available, when in reality many were missing.
Show me where either man says the photos which the review panels used to
base their findings were fraudulent.
You're getting ridiculous again! Why would they show obvious errors to
the panels? By showing the true photos, or some that had been altered,
they could easily make them believe the story told falsely by the AR.
You have offered no evidence that any of the photos were altered. You have
simply assumed that.
TOTAL BULLSHIT! I've pointed out the alterations in at least 2 of the
'leaked' photos. First, the BOH photo, which does not show a single
bullet hole, yet the drawing of that photo shows a clear bullet hole!

In another of the photos here's a view of the top of the head. Note
that the brains fall out of the head down past the curve of the head to
the rear of the head:

Loading Image...


Now here's another of the phony 'leaked' photos showing the back and
top of the head. Where's all the brains? Do you believe the story that
Boswell pulled the scalp forward like a bedsheet and covered up the
brains, or did they just clip them off when they were in the way?

So there's 2 examples of phony photos. There are probably more, and I
believe that the photos were 'leaked' just to answer complaints from the
public. The BOH photo particularly was to prove that there was NO 'large
hole' in the BOH that was seen by so many people. Note that not one of
the photos shows the damage to the right side of the head.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
So once again you've launched your vessel onto troubled waters and
gotten everything wrong as usual. You might want to stop being so afraid
of the facts and testimony in the ARRB files, and then you'd be up on what
happened.
You might want to realize like most of the conspiracy hobbyists of the
world figured out over 20 years ago that the ARRB files were a big nothing
burger.
That was your hope, but I (and others) have found that those ARRB
files contain many of the answers to the autopsy and the phony efforts of
the prosectors.
If there was anything earth shaking in the ARRB files it would have shook
up the world 20 years ago. It didn't.
That's your old song, but it's off key. Much has come from the ARRB
files but you can't admit it because it makes your beloved WCR look really
stupid.

Chris

Anthony Marsh
2017-08-06 00:01:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Robert Turner
I was taking photographs from the TV, and of the Zapruder footage, and a
closer look using the Zoom facilities of my camera. Two figures in the
background seemed very odd, (who I later discovered were supposed to be
Jean Hill and Mary Moorman), and the one in blue looked as if 'she' was
taking a photograph with a camera at her face. But when you look closely,
'her' right hand looks very much like something made of metal or wood, and
coloured to look like flesh - and part of a frame of some kind. This made
me look more closely, and I now think that both of these figures have
weapons, and that one of them fired the fatal shot that killed the
www.robsdataservices.co.uk. (I hope to get some images with the best
detail available, (to go further down the road of 'proving' this), and if
anybody can help, please contact me...) Robert Turner
Robert, I think you are the first to consider that the head shot came from
the South side of Elm street. How could a weapon fired from there either
go around and strike JFK near his right temple, OR go around and strike
JFK in the back of the head?
No. Other kooks have suggested it before. The angles do not work and
there is not a good shooter location.
Who told you that JFK was shot in the right temple?
Yes Anthony, of course the angle doesn't work.
Interesting, I didn't know others have said the head-shot came from a
shooter on the other side of Elm Street. Good thing I said "I think" :-)
Nothing personal, but since you are new to this you did not have to sit
through and read through the thousands of presentations by kooks pushing
silly theories. If you could search the Archives you might stumble onto
things like the Symposia and conferences and newsletters like Echoes of
Conspiracy, The Third Decade and Grassy Knoll Gazette. Some are now online.
Post by Amy Joyce
Nobody told me that JFK was shot in the right temple. I know that some
people believe that the head shot entered in that general area, while
others believe it entered the back of the head.
Some people also believe in Bigfoot, but don't seriously claim that
Bigfoot was the shooter on the grassy knoll. How rude!
I know exactly where you got the idea and his alias here is Chris.
To cover all his bases he conflated right temple with forehead, not
realizing that those are two different bones.
Don't listen to kooks. Read the damn documents for yourself.
Amy Joyce
2017-08-06 22:32:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Robert Turner
I was taking photographs from the TV, and of the Zapruder footage, and a
closer look using the Zoom facilities of my camera. Two figures in the
background seemed very odd, (who I later discovered were supposed to be
Jean Hill and Mary Moorman), and the one in blue looked as if 'she' was
taking a photograph with a camera at her face. But when you look closely,
'her' right hand looks very much like something made of metal or wood, and
coloured to look like flesh - and part of a frame of some kind. This made
me look more closely, and I now think that both of these figures have
weapons, and that one of them fired the fatal shot that killed the
www.robsdataservices.co.uk. (I hope to get some images with the best
detail available, (to go further down the road of 'proving' this), and if
anybody can help, please contact me...) Robert Turner
Robert, I think you are the first to consider that the head shot came from
the South side of Elm street. How could a weapon fired from there either
go around and strike JFK near his right temple, OR go around and strike
JFK in the back of the head?
No. Other kooks have suggested it before. The angles do not work and
there is not a good shooter location.
Who told you that JFK was shot in the right temple?
Yes Anthony, of course the angle doesn't work.
Interesting, I didn't know others have said the head-shot came from a
shooter on the other side of Elm Street. Good thing I said "I think" :-)
Nothing personal, but since you are new to this you did not have to sit
through and read through the thousands of presentations by kooks pushing
silly theories. If you could search the Archives you might stumble onto
things like the Symposia and conferences and newsletters like Echoes of
Conspiracy, The Third Decade and Grassy Knoll Gazette. Some are now online.
Post by Amy Joyce
Nobody told me that JFK was shot in the right temple. I know that some
people believe that the head shot entered in that general area, while
others believe it entered the back of the head.
Some people also believe in Bigfoot, but don't seriously claim that
Bigfoot was the shooter on the grassy knoll. How rude!
I know exactly where you got the idea and his alias here is Chris.
To cover all his bases he conflated right temple with forehead, not
realizing that those are two different bones.
Don't listen to kooks. Read the damn documents for yourself.
Hi Anthony,

Nothing regarding what I said about the head-shot had to do with my
opinion (or Chris'). I was merely stating a (fairly obvious) fact, which
I should have worded different - that some people believe the shot was
fired from behind and others belief it was fired from the front/right.

Chris is a big boy and doesn't need me defending him but he's far from a
kook! Unless you define "kook" as anyone that doesn't think like you do.
I've gotten that impression from some people. Anyway, he's pretty darn
well read. I personally have been reading those damn documents and have
learned that regardless of what it is, the information is slanted.
Unfortunately everything needs to be evaluated for being even slightly
tainted (as you indicated and what I too have discovered).
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-08 16:24:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Robert Turner
I was taking photographs from the TV, and of the Zapruder footage, and a
closer look using the Zoom facilities of my camera. Two figures in the
background seemed very odd, (who I later discovered were supposed to be
Jean Hill and Mary Moorman), and the one in blue looked as if 'she' was
taking a photograph with a camera at her face. But when you look closely,
'her' right hand looks very much like something made of metal or wood, and
coloured to look like flesh - and part of a frame of some kind. This made
me look more closely, and I now think that both of these figures have
weapons, and that one of them fired the fatal shot that killed the
www.robsdataservices.co.uk. (I hope to get some images with the best
detail available, (to go further down the road of 'proving' this), and if
anybody can help, please contact me...) Robert Turner
Robert, I think you are the first to consider that the head shot came from
the South side of Elm street. How could a weapon fired from there either
go around and strike JFK near his right temple, OR go around and strike
JFK in the back of the head?
No. Other kooks have suggested it before. The angles do not work and
there is not a good shooter location.
Who told you that JFK was shot in the right temple?
Yes Anthony, of course the angle doesn't work.
Interesting, I didn't know others have said the head-shot came from a
shooter on the other side of Elm Street. Good thing I said "I think" :-)
Nothing personal, but since you are new to this you did not have to sit
through and read through the thousands of presentations by kooks pushing
silly theories. If you could search the Archives you might stumble onto
things like the Symposia and conferences and newsletters like Echoes of
Conspiracy, The Third Decade and Grassy Knoll Gazette. Some are now online.
Post by Amy Joyce
Nobody told me that JFK was shot in the right temple. I know that some
people believe that the head shot entered in that general area, while
others believe it entered the back of the head.
Some people also believe in Bigfoot, but don't seriously claim that
Bigfoot was the shooter on the grassy knoll. How rude!
I know exactly where you got the idea and his alias here is Chris.
To cover all his bases he conflated right temple with forehead, not
realizing that those are two different bones.
Don't listen to kooks. Read the damn documents for yourself.
Hi Anthony,
Nothing regarding what I said about the head-shot had to do with my
opinion (or Chris'). I was merely stating a (fairly obvious) fact, which
I should have worded different - that some people believe the shot was
fired from behind and others belief it was fired from the front/right.
Chris is a big boy and doesn't need me defending him but he's far from a
kook! Unless you define "kook" as anyone that doesn't think like you do.
No, almost everyone who doesn't think as I do is either a kook or a WC
defender. Chris is not a WC defender. Chris is a kook.
Post by Amy Joyce
I've gotten that impression from some people. Anyway, he's pretty darn
well read. I personally have been reading those damn documents and have
learned that regardless of what it is, the information is slanted.
Unfortunately everything needs to be evaluated for being even slightly
tainted (as you indicated and what I too have discovered).
He reads kook web sites, not the original documents and he doesn't
understand them.
OHLeeRedux
2017-08-09 02:28:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Robert Turner
I was taking photographs from the TV, and of the Zapruder footage, and a
closer look using the Zoom facilities of my camera. Two figures in the
background seemed very odd, (who I later discovered were supposed to be
Jean Hill and Mary Moorman), and the one in blue looked as if 'she' was
taking a photograph with a camera at her face. But when you look closely,
'her' right hand looks very much like something made of metal or wood, and
coloured to look like flesh - and part of a frame of some kind. This made
me look more closely, and I now think that both of these figures have
weapons, and that one of them fired the fatal shot that killed the
www.robsdataservices.co.uk. (I hope to get some images with the best
detail available, (to go further down the road of 'proving' this), and if
anybody can help, please contact me...) Robert Turner
Robert, I think you are the first to consider that the head shot came from
the South side of Elm street. How could a weapon fired from there either
go around and strike JFK near his right temple, OR go around and strike
JFK in the back of the head?
No. Other kooks have suggested it before. The angles do not work and
there is not a good shooter location.
Who told you that JFK was shot in the right temple?
Yes Anthony, of course the angle doesn't work.
Interesting, I didn't know others have said the head-shot came from a
shooter on the other side of Elm Street. Good thing I said "I think" :-)
Nothing personal, but since you are new to this you did not have to sit
through and read through the thousands of presentations by kooks pushing
silly theories. If you could search the Archives you might stumble onto
things like the Symposia and conferences and newsletters like Echoes of
Conspiracy, The Third Decade and Grassy Knoll Gazette. Some are now online.
Post by Amy Joyce
Nobody told me that JFK was shot in the right temple. I know that some
people believe that the head shot entered in that general area, while
others believe it entered the back of the head.
Some people also believe in Bigfoot, but don't seriously claim that
Bigfoot was the shooter on the grassy knoll. How rude!
I know exactly where you got the idea and his alias here is Chris.
To cover all his bases he conflated right temple with forehead, not
realizing that those are two different bones.
Don't listen to kooks. Read the damn documents for yourself.
Hi Anthony,
Nothing regarding what I said about the head-shot had to do with my
opinion (or Chris'). I was merely stating a (fairly obvious) fact, which
I should have worded different - that some people believe the shot was
fired from behind and others belief it was fired from the front/right.
Chris is a big boy and doesn't need me defending him but he's far from a
kook! Unless you define "kook" as anyone that doesn't think like you do.
No, almost everyone who doesn't think as I do is either a kook or a WC
defender. Chris is not a WC defender. Chris is a kook.
Anyone who doesn't think as you do is mentally healthy.
Betty Drew
2017-08-06 22:23:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Imaginary disciple
Loading...