Discussion:
CSPAN Interview With Dr Carrico
(too old to reply)
Mitch Todd
2018-03-19 16:04:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK


bigdog
2018-03-19 23:54:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Excellent find, Mitch. I don't have time to watch the whole thing right
now but I got through the first 18 minutes and it was quite informative.
Most significant so far is at the 16:45 mark where Dr. Carrico describes
the head wound and uses his hand to show the location and extent of the
wound and it fits perfectly with the autopsy report description of the
large defect on the upper right side of JFK's head. With his fingers he
demonstrated a large wound about the size of a grapefruit and he place his
hand above his right ear. Exactly what we see in the Z-film and exactly
what was described in the autopsy report. I look forward to the excuse
Chris comes up with to dismiss this account by Dr. Carrico which is
completely incompatible with his claim the body was altered at Bethesda to
extend the wound in the upper right side of the head. It was already there
per Dr. Carrico. Will Chris now claim that Carrico was pressured to lie,
his memory was faulty, or he was just incompetent. I can't remember if Dr.
Carrico was one of Chris's 39 witnesses to a large hole in the back of
JFK's head. If he is, he might want to drop him off the list. Carrico
doesn't help his cause.
mainframetech
2018-03-21 02:04:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Excellent find, Mitch. I don't have time to watch the whole thing right
now but I got through the first 18 minutes and it was quite informative.
Most significant so far is at the 16:45 mark where Dr. Carrico describes
the head wound and uses his hand to show the location and extent of the
wound and it fits perfectly with the autopsy report description of the
large defect on the upper right side of JFK's head. With his fingers he
demonstrated a large wound about the size of a grapefruit and he place his
hand above his right ear.
Exactly what we see in the Z-film and exactly
what was described in the autopsy report. I look forward to the excuse
Chris comes up with to dismiss this account by Dr. Carrico which is
completely incompatible with his claim the body was altered at Bethesda to
extend the wound in the upper right side of the head. It was already there
per Dr. Carrico. Will Chris now claim that Carrico was pressured to lie,
his memory was faulty, or he was just incompetent. I can't remember if Dr.
Carrico was one of Chris's 39 witnesses to a large hole in the back of
JFK's head. If he is, he might want to drop him off the list. Carrico
doesn't help his cause.
I believe many doctors saw the Autopsy Report (AR) and superposed that
memory over their own real memory. I'm sure that sounds far out to most
LNs, but There is a way to show what Dr. Carrico thought about the wound
location long before that interview, which will prove my point. Here's a
montage of doctors that were pointing out the location of the BOH wound.
Dr. Carrico is the second on the top row:

Loading Image...



As is often the case, the evidence closer to the event is the one that
best shows the beliefs and knowledge of the witness, and I believe the
montage is way before the 1997 date of the Carrico video that got poor bd
so excited.

In going through many witness statements I have seen where the doctors
particularly have said one thing earlier, and then much later they have
said something different. I believe it's from reading the phony AR.
They incorporate the AR description of the wound, which was indeed larger
than the original wound, and was around the right side and a bit of the
top as well as the BOH. The original wound as the body left Parkland was
described by Nurse Diana Bowron as strictly at the BOH only.

If you check the list of Over 39 witnesses, you'll see that many of
the doctors call the wound location occipital or occipital-parietal.
Occipital is low at the BOH.

Loading Image...

Chris
bigdog
2018-03-22 01:11:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Excellent find, Mitch. I don't have time to watch the whole thing right
now but I got through the first 18 minutes and it was quite informative.
Most significant so far is at the 16:45 mark where Dr. Carrico describes
the head wound and uses his hand to show the location and extent of the
wound and it fits perfectly with the autopsy report description of the
large defect on the upper right side of JFK's head. With his fingers he
demonstrated a large wound about the size of a grapefruit and he place his
hand above his right ear.
Exactly what we see in the Z-film and exactly
what was described in the autopsy report. I look forward to the excuse
Chris comes up with to dismiss this account by Dr. Carrico which is
completely incompatible with his claim the body was altered at Bethesda to
extend the wound in the upper right side of the head. It was already there
per Dr. Carrico. Will Chris now claim that Carrico was pressured to lie,
his memory was faulty, or he was just incompetent. I can't remember if Dr.
Carrico was one of Chris's 39 witnesses to a large hole in the back of
JFK's head. If he is, he might want to drop him off the list. Carrico
doesn't help his cause.
I believe many doctors saw the Autopsy Report (AR) and superposed that
memory over their own real memory.
I knew you would invent an excuse but I thought you could do better than
that.

Don't you ever tire of having to jump through all these hoops.
Post by mainframetech
I'm sure that sounds far out to most LNs,
One of your more astute observations.
Post by mainframetech
but There is a way to show what Dr. Carrico thought about the wound
location long before that interview, which will prove my point. Here's a
montage of doctors that were pointing out the location of the BOH wound.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_To8yaQCW4M/UollTaN-8qI/AAAAAAAAw5c/RiqwJovCKkg/s530/198.+%27BOH%27+Wound+Witnesses+(Montage).jpg
Pretty much what he showed in the interview. The upper right side of the
head.
Post by mainframetech
As is often the case, the evidence closer to the event is the one that
best shows the beliefs and knowledge of the witness, and I believe the
montage is way before the 1997 date of the Carrico video that got poor bd
so excited.
Even closer to the event is his WC testimony. I've already posted the
pertinent passage in this thread. He places the large defect in the
"occipitoparietal area" which encompasses both the rear and upper right
side of the skull and fits with the AR description which state "There is a
large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving
chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and
occipital regions.". More support for the conclusions of the prosectors
and you can't use the excuse Carrico didn't see the body to dismiss him.
His testimony pretty much shoots down your claim Humes and Boswell used a
bone saw to extend the wound in to parietal region since Carrico saw the
defect there well before the body reached Bethesda.
Post by mainframetech
In going through many witness statements I have seen where the doctors
particularly have said one thing earlier, and then much later they have
said something different. I believe it's from reading the phony AR.
I'm quite sure the WC would not have allowed any of the ER staff to see
the AR before they testified for just the reason you stated. They would
not want that report to influence their testimony. But of course you will
just imagine they got to see it even though you have no evidence that they
did.
Post by mainframetech
They incorporate the AR description of the wound, which was indeed larger
than the original wound, and was around the right side and a bit of the
top as well as the BOH. The original wound as the body left Parkland was
described by Nurse Diana Bowron as strictly at the BOH only.
Quote please.
Post by mainframetech
If you check the list of Over 39 witnesses, you'll see that many of
the doctors call the wound location occipital or occipital-parietal.
Occipital parietal fits perfectly with the AR placement of the defect.
Post by mainframetech
Occipital is low at the BOH.
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/courses-images/wp-content/uploads/sites/1940/2017/05/29212646/eueywvxjtjq8doz9v1b0.png
Here is a rear diagram of the occipitut and it rises to about the midway
point of the BOH.

Loading Image...
Mitch Todd
2018-03-22 12:40:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Excellent find, Mitch. I don't have time to watch the whole thing right
now but I got through the first 18 minutes and it was quite informative.
Most significant so far is at the 16:45 mark where Dr. Carrico describes
the head wound and uses his hand to show the location and extent of the
wound and it fits perfectly with the autopsy report description of the
large defect on the upper right side of JFK's head. With his fingers he
demonstrated a large wound about the size of a grapefruit and he place his
hand above his right ear.
Exactly what we see in the Z-film and exactly
what was described in the autopsy report. I look forward to the excuse
Chris comes up with to dismiss this account by Dr. Carrico which is
completely incompatible with his claim the body was altered at Bethesda to
extend the wound in the upper right side of the head. It was already there
per Dr. Carrico. Will Chris now claim that Carrico was pressured to lie,
his memory was faulty, or he was just incompetent. I can't remember if Dr.
Carrico was one of Chris's 39 witnesses to a large hole in the back of
JFK's head. If he is, he might want to drop him off the list. Carrico
doesn't help his cause.
I believe many doctors saw the Autopsy Report (AR) and superposed that
memory over their own real memory.
I knew you would invent an excuse but I thought you could do better than
that.
This is going to surprise a lot of people, but I kinda agree with
Chris on this. And it goes further than just the Parkland doctors.
People's memories are influenced by things they see and hear long
after the remembered event. Bonnie Ray Williams initially said
he heard two shots; a few days later, he remembered hearing three.
When asked, he said that he went home to think about it, and the
more he thought about it, the better his memory got ;-). Or, look
at Jackie's testimony as to how she decided she heard three shots;
it involves her reading a magazine. Or, compare the drawing James
Sibert made of the head wounds for the HSCA vs the one that he
made for the ARRB. Or, Connally talking to Agronsky vs what he said
later. With almost any witness, you can find memory creep in their
testimony over time. There are plenty of examples.

Chris's problem is that his thinking is so rigid that he believes
it only happens to WC-friendly witnesses, and that whatever someone
said to the ARRB must be what they always said before and after.
The memory creep (my term for it,BTW) is an important factor to
consider, but it rarely is. And you need to separate those with
"creepy" memories from the outright bullshit artists.

Carrico really does seem to have moved the wound forwards, even
if it's not very far. Most likely from the influence of seeing
the autopsy materials for NOVA in '88. What I thought of as
important in the CSPAN interview is not his description of the
wounds, but his description of what was done, when, why, and in
what sequence during the futile attempts to treat JFK.
John McAdams
2018-03-22 12:49:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Excellent find, Mitch. I don't have time to watch the whole thing right
now but I got through the first 18 minutes and it was quite informative.
Most significant so far is at the 16:45 mark where Dr. Carrico describes
the head wound and uses his hand to show the location and extent of the
wound and it fits perfectly with the autopsy report description of the
large defect on the upper right side of JFK's head. With his fingers he
demonstrated a large wound about the size of a grapefruit and he place his
hand above his right ear.
Exactly what we see in the Z-film and exactly
what was described in the autopsy report. I look forward to the excuse
Chris comes up with to dismiss this account by Dr. Carrico which is
completely incompatible with his claim the body was altered at Bethesda to
extend the wound in the upper right side of the head. It was already there
per Dr. Carrico. Will Chris now claim that Carrico was pressured to lie,
his memory was faulty, or he was just incompetent. I can't remember if Dr.
Carrico was one of Chris's 39 witnesses to a large hole in the back of
JFK's head. If he is, he might want to drop him off the list. Carrico
doesn't help his cause.
I believe many doctors saw the Autopsy Report (AR) and superposed that
memory over their own real memory.
I knew you would invent an excuse but I thought you could do better than
that.
This is going to surprise a lot of people, but I kinda agree with
Chris on this. And it goes further than just the Parkland doctors.
People's memories are influenced by things they see and hear long
after the remembered event. Bonnie Ray Williams initially said
he heard two shots; a few days later, he remembered hearing three.
When asked, he said that he went home to think about it, and the
more he thought about it, the better his memory got ;-). Or, look
at Jackie's testimony as to how she decided she heard three shots;
it involves her reading a magazine. Or, compare the drawing James
Sibert made of the head wounds for the HSCA vs the one that he
made for the ARRB. Or, Connally talking to Agronsky vs what he said
later. With almost any witness, you can find memory creep in their
testimony over time. There are plenty of examples.
Chris's problem is that his thinking is so rigid that he believes
it only happens to WC-friendly witnesses, and that whatever someone
said to the ARRB must be what they always said before and after.
The memory creep (my term for it,BTW) is an important factor to
consider, but it rarely is. And you need to separate those with
"creepy" memories from the outright bullshit artists.
Carrico really does seem to have moved the wound forwards, even
if it's not very far. Most likely from the influence of seeing
the autopsy materials for NOVA in '88. What I thought of as
important in the CSPAN interview is not his description of the
wounds, but his description of what was done, when, why, and in
what sequence during the futile attempts to treat JFK.
You are making a good point about witnesses *in general.*

But with the head wound witnesses, I think something different is
going on.

Buffs look at early verbal descriptions, and interpret them the way
they *want* to. But the descriptions are not very precise.

For example, "occipital area." It does not necessarily mean occipital
bone.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/occipital.htm

And buffs seem to be quite selective in what part of witness testimony
they quote:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg2.txt

From Carrico befor the HSCA:

<Quote on>---------------------------------------

CARRICO:

. . . was a much larger wound than the neck wound. It was five by
seven centimeters, something like that, 2 1/2 by 3 inches, ragged, had
blood and hair all around it, located in the part of the parietal
occipital region.

QUESTION:

Could you just state in layman's terms the approximate place that
would be?

CARRICO:

That would be above and posterior to the ear, almost from the crown of
the head, and there was brain tissue showing through.

<Quote off>-----------------------------------------

Then, in 1981, he drew the wound for the BOSTON GLOBE:

Loading Image...

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-23 04:44:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Excellent find, Mitch. I don't have time to watch the whole thing right
now but I got through the first 18 minutes and it was quite informative.
Most significant so far is at the 16:45 mark where Dr. Carrico describes
the head wound and uses his hand to show the location and extent of the
wound and it fits perfectly with the autopsy report description of the
large defect on the upper right side of JFK's head. With his fingers he
demonstrated a large wound about the size of a grapefruit and he place his
hand above his right ear.
Exactly what we see in the Z-film and exactly
what was described in the autopsy report. I look forward to the excuse
Chris comes up with to dismiss this account by Dr. Carrico which is
completely incompatible with his claim the body was altered at Bethesda to
extend the wound in the upper right side of the head. It was already there
per Dr. Carrico. Will Chris now claim that Carrico was pressured to lie,
his memory was faulty, or he was just incompetent. I can't remember if Dr.
Carrico was one of Chris's 39 witnesses to a large hole in the back of
JFK's head. If he is, he might want to drop him off the list. Carrico
doesn't help his cause.
I believe many doctors saw the Autopsy Report (AR) and superposed that
memory over their own real memory.
I knew you would invent an excuse but I thought you could do better than
that.
This is going to surprise a lot of people, but I kinda agree with
Chris on this. And it goes further than just the Parkland doctors.
People's memories are influenced by things they see and hear long
after the remembered event. Bonnie Ray Williams initially said
he heard two shots; a few days later, he remembered hearing three.
When asked, he said that he went home to think about it, and the
more he thought about it, the better his memory got ;-). Or, look
at Jackie's testimony as to how she decided she heard three shots;
it involves her reading a magazine. Or, compare the drawing James
Sibert made of the head wounds for the HSCA vs the one that he
made for the ARRB. Or, Connally talking to Agronsky vs what he said
later. With almost any witness, you can find memory creep in their
testimony over time. There are plenty of examples.
Chris's problem is that his thinking is so rigid that he believes
it only happens to WC-friendly witnesses, and that whatever someone
said to the ARRB must be what they always said before and after.
The memory creep (my term for it,BTW) is an important factor to
consider, but it rarely is. And you need to separate those with
"creepy" memories from the outright bullshit artists.
Carrico really does seem to have moved the wound forwards, even
if it's not very far. Most likely from the influence of seeing
the autopsy materials for NOVA in '88. What I thought of as
important in the CSPAN interview is not his description of the
wounds, but his description of what was done, when, why, and in
what sequence during the futile attempts to treat JFK.
You are making a good point about witnesses *in general.*
But with the head wound witnesses, I think something different is
going on.
Buffs look at early verbal descriptions, and interpret them the way
they *want* to. But the descriptions are not very precise.
For example, "occipital area." It does not necessarily mean occipital
bone.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/occipital.htm
And buffs seem to be quite selective in what part of witness testimony
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg2.txt
<Quote on>---------------------------------------
. . . was a much larger wound than the neck wound. It was five by
seven centimeters, something like that, 2 1/2 by 3 inches, ragged, had
blood and hair all around it, located in the part of the parietal
occipital region.
Could you just state in layman's terms the approximate place that
would be?
That would be above and posterior to the ear, almost from the crown of
the head, and there was brain tissue showing through.
<Quote off>-----------------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/carrico_skull.GIF
Correct. That is the flap of skull that stuck out.
Not a hole, not a bullet wound.
Not The exit wound from a bullet.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mainframetech
2018-03-24 00:08:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Excellent find, Mitch. I don't have time to watch the whole thing right
now but I got through the first 18 minutes and it was quite informative.
Most significant so far is at the 16:45 mark where Dr. Carrico describes
the head wound and uses his hand to show the location and extent of the
wound and it fits perfectly with the autopsy report description of the
large defect on the upper right side of JFK's head. With his fingers he
demonstrated a large wound about the size of a grapefruit and he place his
hand above his right ear.
Exactly what we see in the Z-film and exactly
what was described in the autopsy report. I look forward to the excuse
Chris comes up with to dismiss this account by Dr. Carrico which is
completely incompatible with his claim the body was altered at Bethesda to
extend the wound in the upper right side of the head. It was already there
per Dr. Carrico. Will Chris now claim that Carrico was pressured to lie,
his memory was faulty, or he was just incompetent. I can't remember if Dr.
Carrico was one of Chris's 39 witnesses to a large hole in the back of
JFK's head. If he is, he might want to drop him off the list. Carrico
doesn't help his cause.
I believe many doctors saw the Autopsy Report (AR) and superposed that
memory over their own real memory.
I knew you would invent an excuse but I thought you could do better than
that.
This is going to surprise a lot of people, but I kinda agree with
Chris on this. And it goes further than just the Parkland doctors.
People's memories are influenced by things they see and hear long
after the remembered event. Bonnie Ray Williams initially said
he heard two shots; a few days later, he remembered hearing three.
When asked, he said that he went home to think about it, and the
more he thought about it, the better his memory got ;-). Or, look
at Jackie's testimony as to how she decided she heard three shots;
it involves her reading a magazine. Or, compare the drawing James
Sibert made of the head wounds for the HSCA vs the one that he
made for the ARRB. Or, Connally talking to Agronsky vs what he said
later. With almost any witness, you can find memory creep in their
testimony over time. There are plenty of examples.
Chris's problem is that his thinking is so rigid that he believes
it only happens to WC-friendly witnesses, and that whatever someone
said to the ARRB must be what they always said before and after.
The memory creep (my term for it,BTW) is an important factor to
consider, but it rarely is. And you need to separate those with
"creepy" memories from the outright bullshit artists.
Carrico really does seem to have moved the wound forwards, even
if it's not very far. Most likely from the influence of seeing
the autopsy materials for NOVA in '88. What I thought of as
important in the CSPAN interview is not his description of the
wounds, but his description of what was done, when, why, and in
what sequence during the futile attempts to treat JFK.
You are making a good point about witnesses *in general.*
But with the head wound witnesses, I think something different is
going on.
Buffs look at early verbal descriptions, and interpret them the way
they *want* to. But the descriptions are not very precise.
For example, "occipital area." It does not necessarily mean occipital
bone.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/occipital.htm
And buffs seem to be quite selective in what part of witness testimony
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg2.txt
<Quote on>---------------------------------------
. . . was a much larger wound than the neck wound. It was five by
seven centimeters, something like that, 2 1/2 by 3 inches, ragged, had
blood and hair all around it, located in the part of the parietal
occipital region.
Could you just state in layman's terms the approximate place that
would be?
That would be above and posterior to the ear, almost from the crown of
the head, and there was brain tissue showing through.
<Quote off>-----------------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/carrico_skull.GIF
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
The problem in this case is that the wound that was in the BOH leaving
Parkland hospital, was much expanded after Humes and Boswell got at the
head at Bethesda. They intentionally expanded the BOH wound which was the
size of a baseball, and made it go around the right side of the head, and
a bit of the top. That expansion shows in the descriptions of the wound
before and after leaving Parkland.

Before:
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

After:
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm



In the case of the BOH wound BEFORE Bethesda, the list of Over 39
witnesses all agree that the wound was confined to the Occipital-parietal
area at the BOH. A reasonable amount of corroboration.

Chris
John McAdams
2018-03-24 00:10:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
You are making a good point about witnesses *in general.*
But with the head wound witnesses, I think something different is
going on.
Buffs look at early verbal descriptions, and interpret them the way
they *want* to. But the descriptions are not very precise.
For example, "occipital area." It does not necessarily mean occipital
bone.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/occipital.htm
And buffs seem to be quite selective in what part of witness testimony
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg2.txt
<Quote on>---------------------------------------
. . . was a much larger wound than the neck wound. It was five by
seven centimeters, something like that, 2 1/2 by 3 inches, ragged, had
blood and hair all around it, located in the part of the parietal
occipital region.
Could you just state in layman's terms the approximate place that
would be?
That would be above and posterior to the ear, almost from the crown of
the head, and there was brain tissue showing through.
<Quote off>-----------------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/carrico_skull.GIF
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
The problem in this case is that the wound that was in the BOH leaving
Parkland hospital, was much expanded after Humes and Boswell got at the
head at Bethesda.
But Carrico saw it *at* Parkland.

He didn't put it where you want it.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mainframetech
2018-03-25 00:40:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
You are making a good point about witnesses *in general.*
But with the head wound witnesses, I think something different is
going on.
Buffs look at early verbal descriptions, and interpret them the way
they *want* to. But the descriptions are not very precise.
For example, "occipital area." It does not necessarily mean occipital
bone.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/occipital.htm
And buffs seem to be quite selective in what part of witness testimony
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg2.txt
<Quote on>---------------------------------------
. . . was a much larger wound than the neck wound. It was five by
seven centimeters, something like that, 2 1/2 by 3 inches, ragged, had
blood and hair all around it, located in the part of the parietal
occipital region.
Could you just state in layman's terms the approximate place that
would be?
That would be above and posterior to the ear, almost from the crown of
the head, and there was brain tissue showing through.
<Quote off>-----------------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/carrico_skull.GIF
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
The problem in this case is that the wound that was in the BOH leaving
Parkland hospital, was much expanded after Humes and Boswell got at the
head at Bethesda.
But Carrico saw it *at* Parkland.
He didn't put it where you want it.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
True, but I showed that he used the wrong term in the video and the
wrong hand gesture to place his hand on the SIDE of his head. When he
spoke of the BOH wound in testimony years earlier, he used the term
occipital-parietal, And used a hand gesture that covered the BOH, slightly
to the right, which is all BOH. In the video he used Parietal-temporal,
which is definitely the SIDE.

Here's a skull parts display to help:

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/courses-images/wp-content/uploads/sites/1940/2017/05/29212646/eueywvxjtjq8doz9v1b0.png

Chris
bigdog
2018-03-25 18:57:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Excellent find, Mitch. I don't have time to watch the whole thing right
now but I got through the first 18 minutes and it was quite informative.
Most significant so far is at the 16:45 mark where Dr. Carrico describes
the head wound and uses his hand to show the location and extent of the
wound and it fits perfectly with the autopsy report description of the
large defect on the upper right side of JFK's head. With his fingers he
demonstrated a large wound about the size of a grapefruit and he place his
hand above his right ear.
Exactly what we see in the Z-film and exactly
what was described in the autopsy report. I look forward to the excuse
Chris comes up with to dismiss this account by Dr. Carrico which is
completely incompatible with his claim the body was altered at Bethesda to
extend the wound in the upper right side of the head. It was already there
per Dr. Carrico. Will Chris now claim that Carrico was pressured to lie,
his memory was faulty, or he was just incompetent. I can't remember if Dr.
Carrico was one of Chris's 39 witnesses to a large hole in the back of
JFK's head. If he is, he might want to drop him off the list. Carrico
doesn't help his cause.
I believe many doctors saw the Autopsy Report (AR) and superposed that
memory over their own real memory.
I knew you would invent an excuse but I thought you could do better than
that.
This is going to surprise a lot of people, but I kinda agree with
Chris on this. And it goes further than just the Parkland doctors.
People's memories are influenced by things they see and hear long
after the remembered event. Bonnie Ray Williams initially said
he heard two shots; a few days later, he remembered hearing three.
When asked, he said that he went home to think about it, and the
more he thought about it, the better his memory got ;-). Or, look
at Jackie's testimony as to how she decided she heard three shots;
it involves her reading a magazine. Or, compare the drawing James
Sibert made of the head wounds for the HSCA vs the one that he
made for the ARRB. Or, Connally talking to Agronsky vs what he said
later. With almost any witness, you can find memory creep in their
testimony over time. There are plenty of examples.
Chris's problem is that his thinking is so rigid that he believes
it only happens to WC-friendly witnesses, and that whatever someone
said to the ARRB must be what they always said before and after.
The memory creep (my term for it,BTW) is an important factor to
consider, but it rarely is. And you need to separate those with
"creepy" memories from the outright bullshit artists.
Carrico really does seem to have moved the wound forwards, even
if it's not very far. Most likely from the influence of seeing
the autopsy materials for NOVA in '88. What I thought of as
important in the CSPAN interview is not his description of the
wounds, but his description of what was done, when, why, and in
what sequence during the futile attempts to treat JFK.
You are making a good point about witnesses *in general.*
But with the head wound witnesses, I think something different is
going on.
Buffs look at early verbal descriptions, and interpret them the way
they *want* to. But the descriptions are not very precise.
For example, "occipital area." It does not necessarily mean occipital
bone.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/occipital.htm
And buffs seem to be quite selective in what part of witness testimony
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg2.txt
<Quote on>---------------------------------------
. . . was a much larger wound than the neck wound. It was five by
seven centimeters, something like that, 2 1/2 by 3 inches, ragged, had
blood and hair all around it, located in the part of the parietal
occipital region.
Could you just state in layman's terms the approximate place that
would be?
That would be above and posterior to the ear, almost from the crown of
the head, and there was brain tissue showing through.
<Quote off>-----------------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/carrico_skull.GIF
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
The problem in this case is that the wound that was in the BOH leaving
Parkland hospital, was much expanded after Humes and Boswell got at the
head at Bethesda. They intentionally expanded the BOH wound which was the
size of a baseball, and made it go around the right side of the head, and
a bit of the top. That expansion shows in the descriptions of the wound
before and after leaving Parkland.
Another fine example of you convincing yourself something happened because it had to have happened for your theories to be valid.
Post by mainframetech
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
In the case of the BOH wound BEFORE Bethesda, the list of Over 39
witnesses all agree that the wound was confined to the Occipital-parietal
area at the BOH. A reasonable amount of corroboration.
Occipital-parietal is perfectly consistent with the AR description of the
defect although the report stated it also extend into the temporal region.
That would be the skull flap we see opened up in several of the leaked
photos including the stare-of-death and BOH photos. That temporal flap is
apparent in the Z-film about a millisecond after the bullet blew open the
upper right side of JFK's head. Just what we see in the film and just what
Zapruder described in a live TV interview before he even saw his film.
mainframetech
2018-03-27 02:22:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Excellent find, Mitch. I don't have time to watch the whole thing right
now but I got through the first 18 minutes and it was quite informative.
Most significant so far is at the 16:45 mark where Dr. Carrico describes
the head wound and uses his hand to show the location and extent of the
wound and it fits perfectly with the autopsy report description of the
large defect on the upper right side of JFK's head. With his fingers he
demonstrated a large wound about the size of a grapefruit and he place his
hand above his right ear.
Exactly what we see in the Z-film and exactly
what was described in the autopsy report. I look forward to the excuse
Chris comes up with to dismiss this account by Dr. Carrico which is
completely incompatible with his claim the body was altered at Bethesda to
extend the wound in the upper right side of the head. It was already there
per Dr. Carrico. Will Chris now claim that Carrico was pressured to lie,
his memory was faulty, or he was just incompetent. I can't remember if Dr.
Carrico was one of Chris's 39 witnesses to a large hole in the back of
JFK's head. If he is, he might want to drop him off the list. Carrico
doesn't help his cause.
I believe many doctors saw the Autopsy Report (AR) and superposed that
memory over their own real memory.
I knew you would invent an excuse but I thought you could do better than
that.
This is going to surprise a lot of people, but I kinda agree with
Chris on this. And it goes further than just the Parkland doctors.
People's memories are influenced by things they see and hear long
after the remembered event. Bonnie Ray Williams initially said
he heard two shots; a few days later, he remembered hearing three.
When asked, he said that he went home to think about it, and the
more he thought about it, the better his memory got ;-). Or, look
at Jackie's testimony as to how she decided she heard three shots;
it involves her reading a magazine. Or, compare the drawing James
Sibert made of the head wounds for the HSCA vs the one that he
made for the ARRB. Or, Connally talking to Agronsky vs what he said
later. With almost any witness, you can find memory creep in their
testimony over time. There are plenty of examples.
Chris's problem is that his thinking is so rigid that he believes
it only happens to WC-friendly witnesses, and that whatever someone
said to the ARRB must be what they always said before and after.
The memory creep (my term for it,BTW) is an important factor to
consider, but it rarely is. And you need to separate those with
"creepy" memories from the outright bullshit artists.
Carrico really does seem to have moved the wound forwards, even
if it's not very far. Most likely from the influence of seeing
the autopsy materials for NOVA in '88. What I thought of as
important in the CSPAN interview is not his description of the
wounds, but his description of what was done, when, why, and in
what sequence during the futile attempts to treat JFK.
You are making a good point about witnesses *in general.*
But with the head wound witnesses, I think something different is
going on.
Buffs look at early verbal descriptions, and interpret them the way
they *want* to. But the descriptions are not very precise.
For example, "occipital area." It does not necessarily mean occipital
bone.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/occipital.htm
And buffs seem to be quite selective in what part of witness testimony
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg2.txt
<Quote on>---------------------------------------
. . . was a much larger wound than the neck wound. It was five by
seven centimeters, something like that, 2 1/2 by 3 inches, ragged, had
blood and hair all around it, located in the part of the parietal
occipital region.
Could you just state in layman's terms the approximate place that
would be?
That would be above and posterior to the ear, almost from the crown of
the head, and there was brain tissue showing through.
<Quote off>-----------------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/carrico_skull.GIF
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
The problem in this case is that the wound that was in the BOH leaving
Parkland hospital, was much expanded after Humes and Boswell got at the
head at Bethesda. They intentionally expanded the BOH wound which was the
size of a baseball, and made it go around the right side of the head, and
a bit of the top. That expansion shows in the descriptions of the wound
before and after leaving Parkland.
Another fine example of you convincing yourself something happened because it had to have happened for your theories to be valid.
Post by mainframetech
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
In the case of the BOH wound BEFORE Bethesda, the list of Over 39
witnesses all agree that the wound was confined to the Occipital-parietal
area at the BOH. A reasonable amount of corroboration.
Occipital-parietal is perfectly consistent with the AR description of the
defect although the report stated it also extend into the temporal region.
That would be the skull flap we see opened up in several of the leaked
photos including the stare-of-death and BOH photos. That temporal flap is
apparent in the Z-film about a millisecond after the bullet blew open the
upper right side of JFK's head. Just what we see in the film and just what
Zapruder described in a live TV interview before he even saw his film.
The wound didn't extend to the temporal area before the body left
Parkland. Too many witnesses and drawings prove it. Later it did because
it was extended by Hume and Boswell. The flap therefore was present when
the AR was written. But it was created by Humes, not a bullet. Humes put
it there so that it would fool the suckers that would think it was a
bullet from above and behind.

Chris
bigdog
2018-03-27 23:55:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Excellent find, Mitch. I don't have time to watch the whole thing right
now but I got through the first 18 minutes and it was quite informative.
Most significant so far is at the 16:45 mark where Dr. Carrico describes
the head wound and uses his hand to show the location and extent of the
wound and it fits perfectly with the autopsy report description of the
large defect on the upper right side of JFK's head. With his fingers he
demonstrated a large wound about the size of a grapefruit and he place his
hand above his right ear.
Exactly what we see in the Z-film and exactly
what was described in the autopsy report. I look forward to the excuse
Chris comes up with to dismiss this account by Dr. Carrico which is
completely incompatible with his claim the body was altered at Bethesda to
extend the wound in the upper right side of the head. It was already there
per Dr. Carrico. Will Chris now claim that Carrico was pressured to lie,
his memory was faulty, or he was just incompetent. I can't remember if Dr.
Carrico was one of Chris's 39 witnesses to a large hole in the back of
JFK's head. If he is, he might want to drop him off the list. Carrico
doesn't help his cause.
I believe many doctors saw the Autopsy Report (AR) and superposed that
memory over their own real memory.
I knew you would invent an excuse but I thought you could do better than
that.
This is going to surprise a lot of people, but I kinda agree with
Chris on this. And it goes further than just the Parkland doctors.
People's memories are influenced by things they see and hear long
after the remembered event. Bonnie Ray Williams initially said
he heard two shots; a few days later, he remembered hearing three.
When asked, he said that he went home to think about it, and the
more he thought about it, the better his memory got ;-). Or, look
at Jackie's testimony as to how she decided she heard three shots;
it involves her reading a magazine. Or, compare the drawing James
Sibert made of the head wounds for the HSCA vs the one that he
made for the ARRB. Or, Connally talking to Agronsky vs what he said
later. With almost any witness, you can find memory creep in their
testimony over time. There are plenty of examples.
Chris's problem is that his thinking is so rigid that he believes
it only happens to WC-friendly witnesses, and that whatever someone
said to the ARRB must be what they always said before and after.
The memory creep (my term for it,BTW) is an important factor to
consider, but it rarely is. And you need to separate those with
"creepy" memories from the outright bullshit artists.
Carrico really does seem to have moved the wound forwards, even
if it's not very far. Most likely from the influence of seeing
the autopsy materials for NOVA in '88. What I thought of as
important in the CSPAN interview is not his description of the
wounds, but his description of what was done, when, why, and in
what sequence during the futile attempts to treat JFK.
You are making a good point about witnesses *in general.*
But with the head wound witnesses, I think something different is
going on.
Buffs look at early verbal descriptions, and interpret them the way
they *want* to. But the descriptions are not very precise.
For example, "occipital area." It does not necessarily mean occipital
bone.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/occipital.htm
And buffs seem to be quite selective in what part of witness testimony
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg2.txt
<Quote on>---------------------------------------
. . . was a much larger wound than the neck wound. It was five by
seven centimeters, something like that, 2 1/2 by 3 inches, ragged, had
blood and hair all around it, located in the part of the parietal
occipital region.
Could you just state in layman's terms the approximate place that
would be?
That would be above and posterior to the ear, almost from the crown of
the head, and there was brain tissue showing through.
<Quote off>-----------------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/carrico_skull.GIF
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
The problem in this case is that the wound that was in the BOH leaving
Parkland hospital, was much expanded after Humes and Boswell got at the
head at Bethesda. They intentionally expanded the BOH wound which was the
size of a baseball, and made it go around the right side of the head, and
a bit of the top. That expansion shows in the descriptions of the wound
before and after leaving Parkland.
Another fine example of you convincing yourself something happened because it had to have happened for your theories to be valid.
Post by mainframetech
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
In the case of the BOH wound BEFORE Bethesda, the list of Over 39
witnesses all agree that the wound was confined to the Occipital-parietal
area at the BOH. A reasonable amount of corroboration.
Occipital-parietal is perfectly consistent with the AR description of the
defect although the report stated it also extend into the temporal region.
That would be the skull flap we see opened up in several of the leaked
photos including the stare-of-death and BOH photos. That temporal flap is
apparent in the Z-film about a millisecond after the bullet blew open the
upper right side of JFK's head. Just what we see in the film and just what
Zapruder described in a live TV interview before he even saw his film.
The wound didn't extend to the temporal area before the body left
Parkland. Too many witnesses and drawings prove it. Later it did because
it was extended by Hume and Boswell. The flap therefore was present when
the AR was written. But it was created by Humes, not a bullet. Humes put
it there so that it would fool the suckers that would think it was a
bullet from above and behind.
The flap was present in the Z-film. How did Humes and Boswell know to
alter the wound to match what was in the Z-film? How did they know to
alter the wound to match what Zapruder and Bill Newman described?
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-29 00:33:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Excellent find, Mitch. I don't have time to watch the whole thing right
now but I got through the first 18 minutes and it was quite informative.
Most significant so far is at the 16:45 mark where Dr. Carrico describes
the head wound and uses his hand to show the location and extent of the
wound and it fits perfectly with the autopsy report description of the
large defect on the upper right side of JFK's head. With his fingers he
demonstrated a large wound about the size of a grapefruit and he place his
hand above his right ear.
Exactly what we see in the Z-film and exactly
what was described in the autopsy report. I look forward to the excuse
Chris comes up with to dismiss this account by Dr. Carrico which is
completely incompatible with his claim the body was altered at Bethesda to
extend the wound in the upper right side of the head. It was already there
per Dr. Carrico. Will Chris now claim that Carrico was pressured to lie,
his memory was faulty, or he was just incompetent. I can't remember if Dr.
Carrico was one of Chris's 39 witnesses to a large hole in the back of
JFK's head. If he is, he might want to drop him off the list. Carrico
doesn't help his cause.
I believe many doctors saw the Autopsy Report (AR) and superposed that
memory over their own real memory.
I knew you would invent an excuse but I thought you could do better than
that.
This is going to surprise a lot of people, but I kinda agree with
Chris on this. And it goes further than just the Parkland doctors.
People's memories are influenced by things they see and hear long
after the remembered event. Bonnie Ray Williams initially said
he heard two shots; a few days later, he remembered hearing three.
When asked, he said that he went home to think about it, and the
more he thought about it, the better his memory got ;-). Or, look
at Jackie's testimony as to how she decided she heard three shots;
it involves her reading a magazine. Or, compare the drawing James
Sibert made of the head wounds for the HSCA vs the one that he
made for the ARRB. Or, Connally talking to Agronsky vs what he said
later. With almost any witness, you can find memory creep in their
testimony over time. There are plenty of examples.
Chris's problem is that his thinking is so rigid that he believes
it only happens to WC-friendly witnesses, and that whatever someone
said to the ARRB must be what they always said before and after.
The memory creep (my term for it,BTW) is an important factor to
consider, but it rarely is. And you need to separate those with
"creepy" memories from the outright bullshit artists.
Carrico really does seem to have moved the wound forwards, even
if it's not very far. Most likely from the influence of seeing
the autopsy materials for NOVA in '88. What I thought of as
important in the CSPAN interview is not his description of the
wounds, but his description of what was done, when, why, and in
what sequence during the futile attempts to treat JFK.
You are making a good point about witnesses *in general.*
But with the head wound witnesses, I think something different is
going on.
Buffs look at early verbal descriptions, and interpret them the way
they *want* to. But the descriptions are not very precise.
For example, "occipital area." It does not necessarily mean occipital
bone.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/occipital.htm
And buffs seem to be quite selective in what part of witness testimony
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg2.txt
<Quote on>---------------------------------------
. . . was a much larger wound than the neck wound. It was five by
seven centimeters, something like that, 2 1/2 by 3 inches, ragged, had
blood and hair all around it, located in the part of the parietal
occipital region.
Could you just state in layman's terms the approximate place that
would be?
That would be above and posterior to the ear, almost from the crown of
the head, and there was brain tissue showing through.
<Quote off>-----------------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/carrico_skull.GIF
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
The problem in this case is that the wound that was in the BOH leaving
Parkland hospital, was much expanded after Humes and Boswell got at the
head at Bethesda. They intentionally expanded the BOH wound which was the
size of a baseball, and made it go around the right side of the head, and
a bit of the top. That expansion shows in the descriptions of the wound
before and after leaving Parkland.
Another fine example of you convincing yourself something happened because it had to have happened for your theories to be valid.
Post by mainframetech
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
In the case of the BOH wound BEFORE Bethesda, the list of Over 39
witnesses all agree that the wound was confined to the Occipital-parietal
area at the BOH. A reasonable amount of corroboration.
Occipital-parietal is perfectly consistent with the AR description of the
defect although the report stated it also extend into the temporal region.
That would be the skull flap we see opened up in several of the leaked
photos including the stare-of-death and BOH photos. That temporal flap is
apparent in the Z-film about a millisecond after the bullet blew open the
upper right side of JFK's head. Just what we see in the film and just what
Zapruder described in a live TV interview before he even saw his film.
The wound didn't extend to the temporal area before the body left
Parkland. Too many witnesses and drawings prove it. Later it did because
it was extended by Hume and Boswell. The flap therefore was present when
the AR was written. But it was created by Humes, not a bullet. Humes put
it there so that it would fool the suckers that would think it was a
bullet from above and behind.
The flap was present in the Z-film. How did Humes and Boswell know to
alter the wound to match what was in the Z-film? How did they know to
alter the wound to match what Zapruder and Bill Newman described?
You're not trying hard enough. Obviously the alterationist would say
that Humes and Boswell were altering the wounds in conjunction with the
CIA altering the Zapruder film to sync up with with each other.
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-03-31 02:34:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Excellent find, Mitch. I don't have time to watch the whole thing right
now but I got through the first 18 minutes and it was quite informative.
Most significant so far is at the 16:45 mark where Dr. Carrico describes
the head wound and uses his hand to show the location and extent of the
wound and it fits perfectly with the autopsy report description of the
large defect on the upper right side of JFK's head. With his fingers he
demonstrated a large wound about the size of a grapefruit and he place his
hand above his right ear.
Exactly what we see in the Z-film and exactly
what was described in the autopsy report. I look forward to the excuse
Chris comes up with to dismiss this account by Dr. Carrico which is
completely incompatible with his claim the body was altered at Bethesda to
extend the wound in the upper right side of the head. It was already there
per Dr. Carrico. Will Chris now claim that Carrico was pressured to lie,
his memory was faulty, or he was just incompetent. I can't remember if Dr.
Carrico was one of Chris's 39 witnesses to a large hole in the back of
JFK's head. If he is, he might want to drop him off the list. Carrico
doesn't help his cause.
I believe many doctors saw the Autopsy Report (AR) and superposed that
memory over their own real memory.
I knew you would invent an excuse but I thought you could do better than
that.
This is going to surprise a lot of people, but I kinda agree with
Chris on this. And it goes further than just the Parkland doctors.
People's memories are influenced by things they see and hear long
after the remembered event. Bonnie Ray Williams initially said
he heard two shots; a few days later, he remembered hearing three.
When asked, he said that he went home to think about it, and the
more he thought about it, the better his memory got ;-). Or, look
at Jackie's testimony as to how she decided she heard three shots;
it involves her reading a magazine. Or, compare the drawing James
Sibert made of the head wounds for the HSCA vs the one that he
made for the ARRB. Or, Connally talking to Agronsky vs what he said
later. With almost any witness, you can find memory creep in their
testimony over time. There are plenty of examples.
Chris's problem is that his thinking is so rigid that he believes
it only happens to WC-friendly witnesses, and that whatever someone
said to the ARRB must be what they always said before and after.
The memory creep (my term for it,BTW) is an important factor to
consider, but it rarely is. And you need to separate those with
"creepy" memories from the outright bullshit artists.
Carrico really does seem to have moved the wound forwards, even
if it's not very far. Most likely from the influence of seeing
the autopsy materials for NOVA in '88. What I thought of as
important in the CSPAN interview is not his description of the
wounds, but his description of what was done, when, why, and in
what sequence during the futile attempts to treat JFK.
You are making a good point about witnesses *in general.*
But with the head wound witnesses, I think something different is
going on.
Buffs look at early verbal descriptions, and interpret them the way
they *want* to. But the descriptions are not very precise.
For example, "occipital area." It does not necessarily mean occipital
bone.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/occipital.htm
And buffs seem to be quite selective in what part of witness testimony
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg2.txt
<Quote on>---------------------------------------
. . . was a much larger wound than the neck wound. It was five by
seven centimeters, something like that, 2 1/2 by 3 inches, ragged, had
blood and hair all around it, located in the part of the parietal
occipital region.
Could you just state in layman's terms the approximate place that
would be?
That would be above and posterior to the ear, almost from the crown of
the head, and there was brain tissue showing through.
<Quote off>-----------------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/carrico_skull.GIF
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
The problem in this case is that the wound that was in the BOH leaving
Parkland hospital, was much expanded after Humes and Boswell got at the
head at Bethesda. They intentionally expanded the BOH wound which was the
size of a baseball, and made it go around the right side of the head, and
a bit of the top. That expansion shows in the descriptions of the wound
before and after leaving Parkland.
Another fine example of you convincing yourself something happened because it had to have happened for your theories to be valid.
Post by mainframetech
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
In the case of the BOH wound BEFORE Bethesda, the list of Over 39
witnesses all agree that the wound was confined to the Occipital-parietal
area at the BOH. A reasonable amount of corroboration.
Occipital-parietal is perfectly consistent with the AR description of the
defect although the report stated it also extend into the temporal region.
That would be the skull flap we see opened up in several of the leaked
photos including the stare-of-death and BOH photos. That temporal flap is
apparent in the Z-film about a millisecond after the bullet blew open the
upper right side of JFK's head. Just what we see in the film and just what
Zapruder described in a live TV interview before he even saw his film.
The wound didn't extend to the temporal area before the body left
Parkland. Too many witnesses and drawings prove it. Later it did because
it was extended by Hume and Boswell. The flap therefore was present when
the AR was written. But it was created by Humes, not a bullet. Humes put
it there so that it would fool the suckers that would think it was a
bullet from above and behind.
The flap was present in the Z-film. How did Humes and Boswell know to
alter the wound to match what was in the Z-film? How did they know to
alter the wound to match what Zapruder and Bill Newman described?
And how did they know that other undiscovered and unviewed films wouldn't
expose the alterations?

As Josiah Thompson pointed out: "[T]he critical problem for anyone
thinking of altering the Zapruder film is not the Muchmore and Nix films.
It is all the other films you don't know about - films developed outside
Dallas by people from out-of-state who just happened by...or by foreign
tourists who would get their films developed in their home countries. Any
one of these unknown films could expose your alteration."

The same principle applies to altering the wounds as well as the Z film.
How would the alterationists (of the film of the wounds, et cetera) know -
or be confident in - that other films or evidence wouldn't expose their
acts?

Of course, we know the answer: they can do anything. They'd just alter
those films and cover up that other evidence.

We are trying to reason with, well, sorry for the word but so be it,
fanatics.
bigdog
2018-03-31 23:03:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Excellent find, Mitch. I don't have time to watch the whole thing right
now but I got through the first 18 minutes and it was quite informative.
Most significant so far is at the 16:45 mark where Dr. Carrico describes
the head wound and uses his hand to show the location and extent of the
wound and it fits perfectly with the autopsy report description of the
large defect on the upper right side of JFK's head. With his fingers he
demonstrated a large wound about the size of a grapefruit and he place his
hand above his right ear.
Exactly what we see in the Z-film and exactly
what was described in the autopsy report. I look forward to the excuse
Chris comes up with to dismiss this account by Dr. Carrico which is
completely incompatible with his claim the body was altered at Bethesda to
extend the wound in the upper right side of the head. It was already there
per Dr. Carrico. Will Chris now claim that Carrico was pressured to lie,
his memory was faulty, or he was just incompetent. I can't remember if Dr.
Carrico was one of Chris's 39 witnesses to a large hole in the back of
JFK's head. If he is, he might want to drop him off the list. Carrico
doesn't help his cause.
I believe many doctors saw the Autopsy Report (AR) and superposed that
memory over their own real memory.
I knew you would invent an excuse but I thought you could do better than
that.
This is going to surprise a lot of people, but I kinda agree with
Chris on this. And it goes further than just the Parkland doctors.
People's memories are influenced by things they see and hear long
after the remembered event. Bonnie Ray Williams initially said
he heard two shots; a few days later, he remembered hearing three.
When asked, he said that he went home to think about it, and the
more he thought about it, the better his memory got ;-). Or, look
at Jackie's testimony as to how she decided she heard three shots;
it involves her reading a magazine. Or, compare the drawing James
Sibert made of the head wounds for the HSCA vs the one that he
made for the ARRB. Or, Connally talking to Agronsky vs what he said
later. With almost any witness, you can find memory creep in their
testimony over time. There are plenty of examples.
Chris's problem is that his thinking is so rigid that he believes
it only happens to WC-friendly witnesses, and that whatever someone
said to the ARRB must be what they always said before and after.
The memory creep (my term for it,BTW) is an important factor to
consider, but it rarely is. And you need to separate those with
"creepy" memories from the outright bullshit artists.
Carrico really does seem to have moved the wound forwards, even
if it's not very far. Most likely from the influence of seeing
the autopsy materials for NOVA in '88. What I thought of as
important in the CSPAN interview is not his description of the
wounds, but his description of what was done, when, why, and in
what sequence during the futile attempts to treat JFK.
You are making a good point about witnesses *in general.*
But with the head wound witnesses, I think something different is
going on.
Buffs look at early verbal descriptions, and interpret them the way
they *want* to. But the descriptions are not very precise.
For example, "occipital area." It does not necessarily mean occipital
bone.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/occipital.htm
And buffs seem to be quite selective in what part of witness testimony
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg2.txt
<Quote on>---------------------------------------
. . . was a much larger wound than the neck wound. It was five by
seven centimeters, something like that, 2 1/2 by 3 inches, ragged, had
blood and hair all around it, located in the part of the parietal
occipital region.
Could you just state in layman's terms the approximate place that
would be?
That would be above and posterior to the ear, almost from the crown of
the head, and there was brain tissue showing through.
<Quote off>-----------------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/carrico_skull.GIF
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
The problem in this case is that the wound that was in the BOH leaving
Parkland hospital, was much expanded after Humes and Boswell got at the
head at Bethesda. They intentionally expanded the BOH wound which was the
size of a baseball, and made it go around the right side of the head, and
a bit of the top. That expansion shows in the descriptions of the wound
before and after leaving Parkland.
Another fine example of you convincing yourself something happened because it had to have happened for your theories to be valid.
Post by mainframetech
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
In the case of the BOH wound BEFORE Bethesda, the list of Over 39
witnesses all agree that the wound was confined to the Occipital-parietal
area at the BOH. A reasonable amount of corroboration.
Occipital-parietal is perfectly consistent with the AR description of the
defect although the report stated it also extend into the temporal region.
That would be the skull flap we see opened up in several of the leaked
photos including the stare-of-death and BOH photos. That temporal flap is
apparent in the Z-film about a millisecond after the bullet blew open the
upper right side of JFK's head. Just what we see in the film and just what
Zapruder described in a live TV interview before he even saw his film.
The wound didn't extend to the temporal area before the body left
Parkland. Too many witnesses and drawings prove it. Later it did because
it was extended by Hume and Boswell. The flap therefore was present when
the AR was written. But it was created by Humes, not a bullet. Humes put
it there so that it would fool the suckers that would think it was a
bullet from above and behind.
The flap was present in the Z-film. How did Humes and Boswell know to
alter the wound to match what was in the Z-film? How did they know to
alter the wound to match what Zapruder and Bill Newman described?
And how did they know that other undiscovered and unviewed films wouldn't
expose the alterations?
Stop trying to be logical. How can we construct a conspiracy theory if
you're going to do that.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
As Josiah Thompson pointed out: "[T]he critical problem for anyone
thinking of altering the Zapruder film is not the Muchmore and Nix films.
It is all the other films you don't know about - films developed outside
Dallas by people from out-of-state who just happened by...or by foreign
tourists who would get their films developed in their home countries. Any
one of these unknown films could expose your alteration."
That makes too much sense. Cut it out.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
The same principle applies to altering the wounds as well as the Z film.
How would the alterationists (of the film of the wounds, et cetera) know -
or be confident in - that other films or evidence wouldn't expose their
acts?
You're making this difficult.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Of course, we know the answer: they can do anything. They'd just alter
those films and cover up that other evidence.
Finally, you got the right answer.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
We are trying to reason with, well, sorry for the word but so be it,
fanatics.
Why do we do that?
mainframetech
2018-04-02 01:11:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Excellent find, Mitch. I don't have time to watch the whole thing right
now but I got through the first 18 minutes and it was quite informative.
Most significant so far is at the 16:45 mark where Dr. Carrico describes
the head wound and uses his hand to show the location and extent of the
wound and it fits perfectly with the autopsy report description of the
large defect on the upper right side of JFK's head. With his fingers he
demonstrated a large wound about the size of a grapefruit and he place his
hand above his right ear.
Exactly what we see in the Z-film and exactly
what was described in the autopsy report. I look forward to the excuse
Chris comes up with to dismiss this account by Dr. Carrico which is
completely incompatible with his claim the body was altered at Bethesda to
extend the wound in the upper right side of the head. It was already there
per Dr. Carrico. Will Chris now claim that Carrico was pressured to lie,
his memory was faulty, or he was just incompetent. I can't remember if Dr.
Carrico was one of Chris's 39 witnesses to a large hole in the back of
JFK's head. If he is, he might want to drop him off the list. Carrico
doesn't help his cause.
I believe many doctors saw the Autopsy Report (AR) and superposed that
memory over their own real memory.
I knew you would invent an excuse but I thought you could do better than
that.
This is going to surprise a lot of people, but I kinda agree with
Chris on this. And it goes further than just the Parkland doctors.
People's memories are influenced by things they see and hear long
after the remembered event. Bonnie Ray Williams initially said
he heard two shots; a few days later, he remembered hearing three.
When asked, he said that he went home to think about it, and the
more he thought about it, the better his memory got ;-). Or, look
at Jackie's testimony as to how she decided she heard three shots;
it involves her reading a magazine. Or, compare the drawing James
Sibert made of the head wounds for the HSCA vs the one that he
made for the ARRB. Or, Connally talking to Agronsky vs what he said
later. With almost any witness, you can find memory creep in their
testimony over time. There are plenty of examples.
Chris's problem is that his thinking is so rigid that he believes
it only happens to WC-friendly witnesses, and that whatever someone
said to the ARRB must be what they always said before and after.
The memory creep (my term for it,BTW) is an important factor to
consider, but it rarely is. And you need to separate those with
"creepy" memories from the outright bullshit artists.
Carrico really does seem to have moved the wound forwards, even
if it's not very far. Most likely from the influence of seeing
the autopsy materials for NOVA in '88. What I thought of as
important in the CSPAN interview is not his description of the
wounds, but his description of what was done, when, why, and in
what sequence during the futile attempts to treat JFK.
You are making a good point about witnesses *in general.*
But with the head wound witnesses, I think something different is
going on.
Buffs look at early verbal descriptions, and interpret them the way
they *want* to. But the descriptions are not very precise.
For example, "occipital area." It does not necessarily mean occipital
bone.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/occipital.htm
And buffs seem to be quite selective in what part of witness testimony
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg2.txt
<Quote on>---------------------------------------
. . . was a much larger wound than the neck wound. It was five by
seven centimeters, something like that, 2 1/2 by 3 inches, ragged, had
blood and hair all around it, located in the part of the parietal
occipital region.
Could you just state in layman's terms the approximate place that
would be?
That would be above and posterior to the ear, almost from the crown of
the head, and there was brain tissue showing through.
<Quote off>-----------------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/carrico_skull.GIF
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
The problem in this case is that the wound that was in the BOH leaving
Parkland hospital, was much expanded after Humes and Boswell got at the
head at Bethesda. They intentionally expanded the BOH wound which was the
size of a baseball, and made it go around the right side of the head, and
a bit of the top. That expansion shows in the descriptions of the wound
before and after leaving Parkland.
Another fine example of you convincing yourself something happened because it had to have happened for your theories to be valid.
Post by mainframetech
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
In the case of the BOH wound BEFORE Bethesda, the list of Over 39
witnesses all agree that the wound was confined to the Occipital-parietal
area at the BOH. A reasonable amount of corroboration.
Occipital-parietal is perfectly consistent with the AR description of the
defect although the report stated it also extend into the temporal region.
That would be the skull flap we see opened up in several of the leaked
photos including the stare-of-death and BOH photos. That temporal flap is
apparent in the Z-film about a millisecond after the bullet blew open the
upper right side of JFK's head. Just what we see in the film and just what
Zapruder described in a live TV interview before he even saw his film.
The wound didn't extend to the temporal area before the body left
Parkland. Too many witnesses and drawings prove it. Later it did because
it was extended by Hume and Boswell. The flap therefore was present when
the AR was written. But it was created by Humes, not a bullet. Humes put
it there so that it would fool the suckers that would think it was a
bullet from above and behind.
The flap was present in the Z-film. How did Humes and Boswell know to
alter the wound to match what was in the Z-film? How did they know to
alter the wound to match what Zapruder and Bill Newman described?
And how did they know that other undiscovered and unviewed films wouldn't
expose the alterations?
Stop trying to be logical. How can we construct a conspiracy theory if
you're going to do that.
Conspiracy in this case was decided by the evidence, as to "theories"
look into the WCR which requires them.
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
As Josiah Thompson pointed out: "[T]he critical problem for anyone
thinking of altering the Zapruder film is not the Muchmore and Nix films.
It is all the other films you don't know about - films developed outside
Dallas by people from out-of-state who just happened by...or by foreign
tourists who would get their films developed in their home countries. Any
one of these unknown films could expose your alteration."
That makes too much sense. Cut it out.
Nope, makes no sense, if it did, wouldn't you supply these other films?
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
The same principle applies to altering the wounds as well as the Z film.
How would the alterationists (of the film of the wounds, et cetera) know -
or be confident in - that other films or evidence wouldn't expose their
acts?
You're making this difficult.
Nope, no problem at all. First, no other films were found, and second,
the film that Pitzer made disappeared, so nothing to it.
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Of course, we know the answer: they can do anything. They'd just alter
those films and cover up that other evidence.
Finally, you got the right answer.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
We are trying to reason with, well, sorry for the word but so be it,
fanatics.
Why do we do that?
You mean the LMN fanatics that will listen to no evidence of any kind,
and reject any witnesses? It's their nature. If they listened, they'd
have to assume some responsibility for the finding of the plotters and the
punishment. too much work.

Chris
bigdog
2018-04-03 00:22:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Excellent find, Mitch. I don't have time to watch the whole thing right
now but I got through the first 18 minutes and it was quite informative.
Most significant so far is at the 16:45 mark where Dr. Carrico describes
the head wound and uses his hand to show the location and extent of the
wound and it fits perfectly with the autopsy report description of the
large defect on the upper right side of JFK's head. With his fingers he
demonstrated a large wound about the size of a grapefruit and he place his
hand above his right ear.
Exactly what we see in the Z-film and exactly
what was described in the autopsy report. I look forward to the excuse
Chris comes up with to dismiss this account by Dr. Carrico which is
completely incompatible with his claim the body was altered at Bethesda to
extend the wound in the upper right side of the head. It was already there
per Dr. Carrico. Will Chris now claim that Carrico was pressured to lie,
his memory was faulty, or he was just incompetent. I can't remember if Dr.
Carrico was one of Chris's 39 witnesses to a large hole in the back of
JFK's head. If he is, he might want to drop him off the list. Carrico
doesn't help his cause.
I believe many doctors saw the Autopsy Report (AR) and superposed that
memory over their own real memory.
I knew you would invent an excuse but I thought you could do better than
that.
This is going to surprise a lot of people, but I kinda agree with
Chris on this. And it goes further than just the Parkland doctors.
People's memories are influenced by things they see and hear long
after the remembered event. Bonnie Ray Williams initially said
he heard two shots; a few days later, he remembered hearing three.
When asked, he said that he went home to think about it, and the
more he thought about it, the better his memory got ;-). Or, look
at Jackie's testimony as to how she decided she heard three shots;
it involves her reading a magazine. Or, compare the drawing James
Sibert made of the head wounds for the HSCA vs the one that he
made for the ARRB. Or, Connally talking to Agronsky vs what he said
later. With almost any witness, you can find memory creep in their
testimony over time. There are plenty of examples.
Chris's problem is that his thinking is so rigid that he believes
it only happens to WC-friendly witnesses, and that whatever someone
said to the ARRB must be what they always said before and after.
The memory creep (my term for it,BTW) is an important factor to
consider, but it rarely is. And you need to separate those with
"creepy" memories from the outright bullshit artists.
Carrico really does seem to have moved the wound forwards, even
if it's not very far. Most likely from the influence of seeing
the autopsy materials for NOVA in '88. What I thought of as
important in the CSPAN interview is not his description of the
wounds, but his description of what was done, when, why, and in
what sequence during the futile attempts to treat JFK.
You are making a good point about witnesses *in general.*
But with the head wound witnesses, I think something different is
going on.
Buffs look at early verbal descriptions, and interpret them the way
they *want* to. But the descriptions are not very precise.
For example, "occipital area." It does not necessarily mean occipital
bone.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/occipital.htm
And buffs seem to be quite selective in what part of witness testimony
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg2.txt
<Quote on>---------------------------------------
. . . was a much larger wound than the neck wound. It was five by
seven centimeters, something like that, 2 1/2 by 3 inches, ragged, had
blood and hair all around it, located in the part of the parietal
occipital region.
Could you just state in layman's terms the approximate place that
would be?
That would be above and posterior to the ear, almost from the crown of
the head, and there was brain tissue showing through.
<Quote off>-----------------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/carrico_skull.GIF
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
The problem in this case is that the wound that was in the BOH leaving
Parkland hospital, was much expanded after Humes and Boswell got at the
head at Bethesda. They intentionally expanded the BOH wound which was the
size of a baseball, and made it go around the right side of the head, and
a bit of the top. That expansion shows in the descriptions of the wound
before and after leaving Parkland.
Another fine example of you convincing yourself something happened because it had to have happened for your theories to be valid.
Post by mainframetech
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
In the case of the BOH wound BEFORE Bethesda, the list of Over 39
witnesses all agree that the wound was confined to the Occipital-parietal
area at the BOH. A reasonable amount of corroboration.
Occipital-parietal is perfectly consistent with the AR description of the
defect although the report stated it also extend into the temporal region.
That would be the skull flap we see opened up in several of the leaked
photos including the stare-of-death and BOH photos. That temporal flap is
apparent in the Z-film about a millisecond after the bullet blew open the
upper right side of JFK's head. Just what we see in the film and just what
Zapruder described in a live TV interview before he even saw his film.
The wound didn't extend to the temporal area before the body left
Parkland. Too many witnesses and drawings prove it. Later it did because
it was extended by Hume and Boswell. The flap therefore was present when
the AR was written. But it was created by Humes, not a bullet. Humes put
it there so that it would fool the suckers that would think it was a
bullet from above and behind.
The flap was present in the Z-film. How did Humes and Boswell know to
alter the wound to match what was in the Z-film? How did they know to
alter the wound to match what Zapruder and Bill Newman described?
And how did they know that other undiscovered and unviewed films wouldn't
expose the alterations?
Stop trying to be logical. How can we construct a conspiracy theory if
you're going to do that.
Conspiracy in this case was decided by the evidence, as to "theories"
look into the WCR which requires them.
No, it was decided by people who are really, really bad at weighing and interpreting evidence.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
As Josiah Thompson pointed out: "[T]he critical problem for anyone
thinking of altering the Zapruder film is not the Muchmore and Nix films.
It is all the other films you don't know about - films developed outside
Dallas by people from out-of-state who just happened by...or by foreign
tourists who would get their films developed in their home countries. Any
one of these unknown films could expose your alteration."
That makes too much sense. Cut it out.
Nope, makes no sense, if it did, wouldn't you supply these other films?
The point went right over your head. It wouldn't make any sense for anyone
to alter one film without knowing how many other films there might be of
the assassination. How could anyone have known that? As it is we have the
Nix and Muchmore films and they show the same thing the Z-film does from
the opposite side. We don't see the massive head wound because of the side
they were on but both films show the same action that the Z-film does.
Although it is feint because of the distance we do see the blood and brain
flying forward from the head shot.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
The same principle applies to altering the wounds as well as the Z film.
How would the alterationists (of the film of the wounds, et cetera) know -
or be confident in - that other films or evidence wouldn't expose their
acts?
You're making this difficult.
Nope, no problem at all. First, no other films were found, and second,
the film that Pitzer made disappeared, so nothing to it.
They couldn't have known that at the time they decided to alter the Z-film.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Of course, we know the answer: they can do anything. They'd just alter
those films and cover up that other evidence.
Finally, you got the right answer.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
We are trying to reason with, well, sorry for the word but so be it,
fanatics.
Why do we do that?
You mean the LMN fanatics that will listen to no evidence of any kind,
and reject any witnesses? It's their nature. If they listened, they'd
have to assume some responsibility for the finding of the plotters and the
punishment. too much work.
LNs look at hard evidence and are capable of logically weighing it. We
also know that witnesses get some things right and some things wrong and
the way you tell the difference is by weighing their accounts against the
forensic evidence to either corroborate or refute what they tell us. When
you do that it is quite clear that Oswald was the assassin and there is no
credible evidence he had even a single accomplice.
mainframetech
2018-04-03 23:44:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Excellent find, Mitch. I don't have time to watch the whole thing right
now but I got through the first 18 minutes and it was quite informative.
Most significant so far is at the 16:45 mark where Dr. Carrico describes
the head wound and uses his hand to show the location and extent of the
wound and it fits perfectly with the autopsy report description of the
large defect on the upper right side of JFK's head. With his fingers he
demonstrated a large wound about the size of a grapefruit and he place his
hand above his right ear.
Exactly what we see in the Z-film and exactly
what was described in the autopsy report. I look forward to the excuse
Chris comes up with to dismiss this account by Dr. Carrico which is
completely incompatible with his claim the body was altered at Bethesda to
extend the wound in the upper right side of the head. It was already there
per Dr. Carrico. Will Chris now claim that Carrico was pressured to lie,
his memory was faulty, or he was just incompetent. I can't remember if Dr.
Carrico was one of Chris's 39 witnesses to a large hole in the back of
JFK's head. If he is, he might want to drop him off the list. Carrico
doesn't help his cause.
I believe many doctors saw the Autopsy Report (AR) and superposed that
memory over their own real memory.
I knew you would invent an excuse but I thought you could do better than
that.
This is going to surprise a lot of people, but I kinda agree with
Chris on this. And it goes further than just the Parkland doctors.
People's memories are influenced by things they see and hear long
after the remembered event. Bonnie Ray Williams initially said
he heard two shots; a few days later, he remembered hearing three.
When asked, he said that he went home to think about it, and the
more he thought about it, the better his memory got ;-). Or, look
at Jackie's testimony as to how she decided she heard three shots;
it involves her reading a magazine. Or, compare the drawing James
Sibert made of the head wounds for the HSCA vs the one that he
made for the ARRB. Or, Connally talking to Agronsky vs what he said
later. With almost any witness, you can find memory creep in their
testimony over time. There are plenty of examples.
Chris's problem is that his thinking is so rigid that he believes
it only happens to WC-friendly witnesses, and that whatever someone
said to the ARRB must be what they always said before and after.
The memory creep (my term for it,BTW) is an important factor to
consider, but it rarely is. And you need to separate those with
"creepy" memories from the outright bullshit artists.
Carrico really does seem to have moved the wound forwards, even
if it's not very far. Most likely from the influence of seeing
the autopsy materials for NOVA in '88. What I thought of as
important in the CSPAN interview is not his description of the
wounds, but his description of what was done, when, why, and in
what sequence during the futile attempts to treat JFK.
You are making a good point about witnesses *in general.*
But with the head wound witnesses, I think something different is
going on.
Buffs look at early verbal descriptions, and interpret them the way
they *want* to. But the descriptions are not very precise.
For example, "occipital area." It does not necessarily mean occipital
bone.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/occipital.htm
And buffs seem to be quite selective in what part of witness testimony
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg2.txt
<Quote on>---------------------------------------
. . . was a much larger wound than the neck wound. It was five by
seven centimeters, something like that, 2 1/2 by 3 inches, ragged, had
blood and hair all around it, located in the part of the parietal
occipital region.
Could you just state in layman's terms the approximate place that
would be?
That would be above and posterior to the ear, almost from the crown of
the head, and there was brain tissue showing through.
<Quote off>-----------------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/carrico_skull.GIF
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
The problem in this case is that the wound that was in the BOH leaving
Parkland hospital, was much expanded after Humes and Boswell got at the
head at Bethesda. They intentionally expanded the BOH wound which was the
size of a baseball, and made it go around the right side of the head, and
a bit of the top. That expansion shows in the descriptions of the wound
before and after leaving Parkland.
Another fine example of you convincing yourself something happened because it had to have happened for your theories to be valid.
Post by mainframetech
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
In the case of the BOH wound BEFORE Bethesda, the list of Over 39
witnesses all agree that the wound was confined to the Occipital-parietal
area at the BOH. A reasonable amount of corroboration.
Occipital-parietal is perfectly consistent with the AR description of the
defect although the report stated it also extend into the temporal region.
That would be the skull flap we see opened up in several of the leaked
photos including the stare-of-death and BOH photos. That temporal flap is
apparent in the Z-film about a millisecond after the bullet blew open the
upper right side of JFK's head. Just what we see in the film and just what
Zapruder described in a live TV interview before he even saw his film.
The wound didn't extend to the temporal area before the body left
Parkland. Too many witnesses and drawings prove it. Later it did because
it was extended by Hume and Boswell. The flap therefore was present when
the AR was written. But it was created by Humes, not a bullet. Humes put
it there so that it would fool the suckers that would think it was a
bullet from above and behind.
The flap was present in the Z-film. How did Humes and Boswell know to
alter the wound to match what was in the Z-film? How did they know to
alter the wound to match what Zapruder and Bill Newman described?
And how did they know that other undiscovered and unviewed films wouldn't
expose the alterations?
Stop trying to be logical. How can we construct a conspiracy theory if
you're going to do that.
Conspiracy in this case was decided by the evidence, as to "theories"
look into the WCR which requires them.
No, it was decided by people who are really, really bad at weighing and interpreting evidence.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
As Josiah Thompson pointed out: "[T]he critical problem for anyone
thinking of altering the Zapruder film is not the Muchmore and Nix films.
It is all the other films you don't know about - films developed outside
Dallas by people from out-of-state who just happened by...or by foreign
tourists who would get their films developed in their home countries. Any
one of these unknown films could expose your alteration."
That makes too much sense. Cut it out.
Nope, makes no sense, if it did, wouldn't you supply these other films?
The point went right over your head. It wouldn't make any sense for anyone
to alter one film without knowing how many other films there might be of
the assassination. How could anyone have known that? As it is we have the
Nix and Muchmore films and they show the same thing the Z-film does from
the opposite side. We don't see the massive head wound because of the side
they were on but both films show the same action that the Z-film does.
Although it is feint because of the distance we do see the blood and brain
flying forward from the head shot.
Thank you. The main difference in the films is the showing of the
ridiculous flap flying off the head in the Z-film. That alone was enough
to make trouble if the Nix and Muchmore films were from the right side!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
The same principle applies to altering the wounds as well as the Z film.
How would the alterationists (of the film of the wounds, et cetera) know -
or be confident in - that other films or evidence wouldn't expose their
acts?
You're making this difficult.
Nope, no problem at all. First, no other films were found, and second,
the film that Pitzer made disappeared, so nothing to it.
They couldn't have known that at the time they decided to alter the Z-film.
No bearing. Pitzer's film showed alteration of photos, and that had
to go.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Of course, we know the answer: they can do anything. They'd just alter
those films and cover up that other evidence.
Finally, you got the right answer.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
We are trying to reason with, well, sorry for the word but so be it,
fanatics.
Why do we do that?
You mean the LN fanatics that will listen to no evidence of any kind,
and reject any witnesses? It's their nature. If they listened, they'd
have to assume some responsibility for the finding of the plotters and the
punishment. too much work.
LNs look at hard evidence and are capable of logically weighing it. We
also know that witnesses get some things right and some things wrong and
the way you tell the difference is by weighing their accounts against the
forensic evidence to either corroborate or refute what they tell us. When
you do that it is quite clear that Oswald was the assassin and there is no
credible evidence he had even a single accomplice.
First you have to find "credible evidence:" that Oswald fired the MC
rifle out the window at the motorcade. And you failed miserably at that.

Chris
bigdog
2018-04-05 02:46:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Excellent find, Mitch. I don't have time to watch the whole thing right
now but I got through the first 18 minutes and it was quite informative.
Most significant so far is at the 16:45 mark where Dr. Carrico describes
the head wound and uses his hand to show the location and extent of the
wound and it fits perfectly with the autopsy report description of the
large defect on the upper right side of JFK's head. With his fingers he
demonstrated a large wound about the size of a grapefruit and he place his
hand above his right ear.
Exactly what we see in the Z-film and exactly
what was described in the autopsy report. I look forward to the excuse
Chris comes up with to dismiss this account by Dr. Carrico which is
completely incompatible with his claim the body was altered at Bethesda to
extend the wound in the upper right side of the head. It was already there
per Dr. Carrico. Will Chris now claim that Carrico was pressured to lie,
his memory was faulty, or he was just incompetent. I can't remember if Dr.
Carrico was one of Chris's 39 witnesses to a large hole in the back of
JFK's head. If he is, he might want to drop him off the list. Carrico
doesn't help his cause.
I believe many doctors saw the Autopsy Report (AR) and superposed that
memory over their own real memory.
I knew you would invent an excuse but I thought you could do better than
that.
This is going to surprise a lot of people, but I kinda agree with
Chris on this. And it goes further than just the Parkland doctors.
People's memories are influenced by things they see and hear long
after the remembered event. Bonnie Ray Williams initially said
he heard two shots; a few days later, he remembered hearing three.
When asked, he said that he went home to think about it, and the
more he thought about it, the better his memory got ;-). Or, look
at Jackie's testimony as to how she decided she heard three shots;
it involves her reading a magazine. Or, compare the drawing James
Sibert made of the head wounds for the HSCA vs the one that he
made for the ARRB. Or, Connally talking to Agronsky vs what he said
later. With almost any witness, you can find memory creep in their
testimony over time. There are plenty of examples.
Chris's problem is that his thinking is so rigid that he believes
it only happens to WC-friendly witnesses, and that whatever someone
said to the ARRB must be what they always said before and after.
The memory creep (my term for it,BTW) is an important factor to
consider, but it rarely is. And you need to separate those with
"creepy" memories from the outright bullshit artists.
Carrico really does seem to have moved the wound forwards, even
if it's not very far. Most likely from the influence of seeing
the autopsy materials for NOVA in '88. What I thought of as
important in the CSPAN interview is not his description of the
wounds, but his description of what was done, when, why, and in
what sequence during the futile attempts to treat JFK.
You are making a good point about witnesses *in general.*
But with the head wound witnesses, I think something different is
going on.
Buffs look at early verbal descriptions, and interpret them the way
they *want* to. But the descriptions are not very precise.
For example, "occipital area." It does not necessarily mean occipital
bone.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/occipital.htm
And buffs seem to be quite selective in what part of witness testimony
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg2.txt
<Quote on>---------------------------------------
. . . was a much larger wound than the neck wound. It was five by
seven centimeters, something like that, 2 1/2 by 3 inches, ragged, had
blood and hair all around it, located in the part of the parietal
occipital region.
Could you just state in layman's terms the approximate place that
would be?
That would be above and posterior to the ear, almost from the crown of
the head, and there was brain tissue showing through.
<Quote off>-----------------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/carrico_skull.GIF
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
The problem in this case is that the wound that was in the BOH leaving
Parkland hospital, was much expanded after Humes and Boswell got at the
head at Bethesda. They intentionally expanded the BOH wound which was the
size of a baseball, and made it go around the right side of the head, and
a bit of the top. That expansion shows in the descriptions of the wound
before and after leaving Parkland.
Another fine example of you convincing yourself something happened because it had to have happened for your theories to be valid.
Post by mainframetech
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
In the case of the BOH wound BEFORE Bethesda, the list of Over 39
witnesses all agree that the wound was confined to the Occipital-parietal
area at the BOH. A reasonable amount of corroboration.
Occipital-parietal is perfectly consistent with the AR description of the
defect although the report stated it also extend into the temporal region.
That would be the skull flap we see opened up in several of the leaked
photos including the stare-of-death and BOH photos. That temporal flap is
apparent in the Z-film about a millisecond after the bullet blew open the
upper right side of JFK's head. Just what we see in the film and just what
Zapruder described in a live TV interview before he even saw his film.
The wound didn't extend to the temporal area before the body left
Parkland. Too many witnesses and drawings prove it. Later it did because
it was extended by Hume and Boswell. The flap therefore was present when
the AR was written. But it was created by Humes, not a bullet. Humes put
it there so that it would fool the suckers that would think it was a
bullet from above and behind.
The flap was present in the Z-film. How did Humes and Boswell know to
alter the wound to match what was in the Z-film? How did they know to
alter the wound to match what Zapruder and Bill Newman described?
And how did they know that other undiscovered and unviewed films wouldn't
expose the alterations?
Stop trying to be logical. How can we construct a conspiracy theory if
you're going to do that.
Conspiracy in this case was decided by the evidence, as to "theories"
look into the WCR which requires them.
No, it was decided by people who are really, really bad at weighing and interpreting evidence.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
As Josiah Thompson pointed out: "[T]he critical problem for anyone
thinking of altering the Zapruder film is not the Muchmore and Nix films.
It is all the other films you don't know about - films developed outside
Dallas by people from out-of-state who just happened by...or by foreign
tourists who would get their films developed in their home countries. Any
one of these unknown films could expose your alteration."
That makes too much sense. Cut it out.
Nope, makes no sense, if it did, wouldn't you supply these other films?
The point went right over your head. It wouldn't make any sense for anyone
to alter one film without knowing how many other films there might be of
the assassination. How could anyone have known that? As it is we have the
Nix and Muchmore films and they show the same thing the Z-film does from
the opposite side. We don't see the massive head wound because of the side
they were on but both films show the same action that the Z-film does.
Although it is feint because of the distance we do see the blood and brain
flying forward from the head shot.
Thank you. The main difference in the films is the showing of the
ridiculous flap flying off the head in the Z-film. That alone was enough
to make trouble if the Nix and Muchmore films were from the right side!
Why would you expect a bone flap on the right side of JFK's head to show
up in the Nix and Muchmore films taken from the left side of the limo and
at a muchgreater distance?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
The same principle applies to altering the wounds as well as the Z film.
How would the alterationists (of the film of the wounds, et cetera) know -
or be confident in - that other films or evidence wouldn't expose their
acts?
You're making this difficult.
Nope, no problem at all. First, no other films were found, and second,
the film that Pitzer made disappeared, so nothing to it.
They couldn't have known that at the time they decided to alter the Z-film.
No bearing. Pitzer's film showed alteration of photos, and that had
to go.
Nonsense.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Of course, we know the answer: they can do anything. They'd just alter
those films and cover up that other evidence.
Finally, you got the right answer.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
We are trying to reason with, well, sorry for the word but so be it,
fanatics.
Why do we do that?
You mean the LN fanatics that will listen to no evidence of any kind,
and reject any witnesses? It's their nature. If they listened, they'd
have to assume some responsibility for the finding of the plotters and the
punishment. too much work.
LNs look at hard evidence and are capable of logically weighing it. We
also know that witnesses get some things right and some things wrong and
the way you tell the difference is by weighing their accounts against the
forensic evidence to either corroborate or refute what they tell us. When
you do that it is quite clear that Oswald was the assassin and there is no
credible evidence he had even a single accomplice.
First you have to find "credible evidence:" that Oswald fired the MC
rifle out the window at the motorcade. And you failed miserably at that.
I don't have to find that. The DPD did that in the first few hours
following the shooting. The fact that you have failed to be convinced by
that is your failing, not mine.
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-04-02 02:21:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Excellent find, Mitch. I don't have time to watch the whole thing right
now but I got through the first 18 minutes and it was quite informative.
Most significant so far is at the 16:45 mark where Dr. Carrico describes
the head wound and uses his hand to show the location and extent of the
wound and it fits perfectly with the autopsy report description of the
large defect on the upper right side of JFK's head. With his fingers he
demonstrated a large wound about the size of a grapefruit and he place his
hand above his right ear.
Exactly what we see in the Z-film and exactly
what was described in the autopsy report. I look forward to the excuse
Chris comes up with to dismiss this account by Dr. Carrico which is
completely incompatible with his claim the body was altered at Bethesda to
extend the wound in the upper right side of the head. It was already there
per Dr. Carrico. Will Chris now claim that Carrico was pressured to lie,
his memory was faulty, or he was just incompetent. I can't remember if Dr.
Carrico was one of Chris's 39 witnesses to a large hole in the back of
JFK's head. If he is, he might want to drop him off the list. Carrico
doesn't help his cause.
I believe many doctors saw the Autopsy Report (AR) and superposed that
memory over their own real memory.
I knew you would invent an excuse but I thought you could do better than
that.
This is going to surprise a lot of people, but I kinda agree with
Chris on this. And it goes further than just the Parkland doctors.
People's memories are influenced by things they see and hear long
after the remembered event. Bonnie Ray Williams initially said
he heard two shots; a few days later, he remembered hearing three.
When asked, he said that he went home to think about it, and the
more he thought about it, the better his memory got ;-). Or, look
at Jackie's testimony as to how she decided she heard three shots;
it involves her reading a magazine. Or, compare the drawing James
Sibert made of the head wounds for the HSCA vs the one that he
made for the ARRB. Or, Connally talking to Agronsky vs what he said
later. With almost any witness, you can find memory creep in their
testimony over time. There are plenty of examples.
Chris's problem is that his thinking is so rigid that he believes
it only happens to WC-friendly witnesses, and that whatever someone
said to the ARRB must be what they always said before and after.
The memory creep (my term for it,BTW) is an important factor to
consider, but it rarely is. And you need to separate those with
"creepy" memories from the outright bullshit artists.
Carrico really does seem to have moved the wound forwards, even
if it's not very far. Most likely from the influence of seeing
the autopsy materials for NOVA in '88. What I thought of as
important in the CSPAN interview is not his description of the
wounds, but his description of what was done, when, why, and in
what sequence during the futile attempts to treat JFK.
You are making a good point about witnesses *in general.*
But with the head wound witnesses, I think something different is
going on.
Buffs look at early verbal descriptions, and interpret them the way
they *want* to. But the descriptions are not very precise.
For example, "occipital area." It does not necessarily mean occipital
bone.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/occipital.htm
And buffs seem to be quite selective in what part of witness testimony
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg2.txt
<Quote on>---------------------------------------
. . . was a much larger wound than the neck wound. It was five by
seven centimeters, something like that, 2 1/2 by 3 inches, ragged, had
blood and hair all around it, located in the part of the parietal
occipital region.
Could you just state in layman's terms the approximate place that
would be?
That would be above and posterior to the ear, almost from the crown of
the head, and there was brain tissue showing through.
<Quote off>-----------------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/carrico_skull.GIF
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
The problem in this case is that the wound that was in the BOH leaving
Parkland hospital, was much expanded after Humes and Boswell got at the
head at Bethesda. They intentionally expanded the BOH wound which was the
size of a baseball, and made it go around the right side of the head, and
a bit of the top. That expansion shows in the descriptions of the wound
before and after leaving Parkland.
Another fine example of you convincing yourself something happened because it had to have happened for your theories to be valid.
Post by mainframetech
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
In the case of the BOH wound BEFORE Bethesda, the list of Over 39
witnesses all agree that the wound was confined to the Occipital-parietal
area at the BOH. A reasonable amount of corroboration.
Occipital-parietal is perfectly consistent with the AR description of the
defect although the report stated it also extend into the temporal region.
That would be the skull flap we see opened up in several of the leaked
photos including the stare-of-death and BOH photos. That temporal flap is
apparent in the Z-film about a millisecond after the bullet blew open the
upper right side of JFK's head. Just what we see in the film and just what
Zapruder described in a live TV interview before he even saw his film.
The wound didn't extend to the temporal area before the body left
Parkland. Too many witnesses and drawings prove it. Later it did because
it was extended by Hume and Boswell. The flap therefore was present when
the AR was written. But it was created by Humes, not a bullet. Humes put
it there so that it would fool the suckers that would think it was a
bullet from above and behind.
The flap was present in the Z-film. How did Humes and Boswell know to
alter the wound to match what was in the Z-film? How did they know to
alter the wound to match what Zapruder and Bill Newman described?
And how did they know that other undiscovered and unviewed films wouldn't
expose the alterations?
Stop trying to be logical. How can we construct a conspiracy theory if
you're going to do that.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
As Josiah Thompson pointed out: "[T]he critical problem for anyone
thinking of altering the Zapruder film is not the Muchmore and Nix films.
It is all the other films you don't know about - films developed outside
Dallas by people from out-of-state who just happened by...or by foreign
tourists who would get their films developed in their home countries. Any
one of these unknown films could expose your alteration."
That makes too much sense. Cut it out.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
The same principle applies to altering the wounds as well as the Z film.
How would the alterationists (of the film of the wounds, et cetera) know -
or be confident in - that other films or evidence wouldn't expose their
acts?
You're making this difficult.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Of course, we know the answer: they can do anything. They'd just alter
those films and cover up that other evidence.
Finally, you got the right answer.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
We are trying to reason with, well, sorry for the word but so be it,
fanatics.
Why do we do that?
Remember, about 40 years later "they" fired a missile at the Pentagon. In
broad daylight. Near a congested highway that led to the airport and D.C.

I drove that road hundreds of times when I lived in Northern Virginia. On
the right is the exit to the airport, to the left is the Pentagon.
Straight ahead is D.C. and the 14th street bridge - the one that was hit
by the plane during the snowstorm.

It's a major artery into Washington from Northern Va.

It's absurd that anyone thought they could fire a missile and not have it
be seen.
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-03 03:58:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Excellent find, Mitch. I don't have time to watch the whole thing right
now but I got through the first 18 minutes and it was quite informative.
Most significant so far is at the 16:45 mark where Dr. Carrico describes
the head wound and uses his hand to show the location and extent of the
wound and it fits perfectly with the autopsy report description of the
large defect on the upper right side of JFK's head. With his fingers he
demonstrated a large wound about the size of a grapefruit and he place his
hand above his right ear.
Exactly what we see in the Z-film and exactly
what was described in the autopsy report. I look forward to the excuse
Chris comes up with to dismiss this account by Dr. Carrico which is
completely incompatible with his claim the body was altered at Bethesda to
extend the wound in the upper right side of the head. It was already there
per Dr. Carrico. Will Chris now claim that Carrico was pressured to lie,
his memory was faulty, or he was just incompetent. I can't remember if Dr.
Carrico was one of Chris's 39 witnesses to a large hole in the back of
JFK's head. If he is, he might want to drop him off the list. Carrico
doesn't help his cause.
I believe many doctors saw the Autopsy Report (AR) and superposed that
memory over their own real memory.
I knew you would invent an excuse but I thought you could do better than
that.
This is going to surprise a lot of people, but I kinda agree with
Chris on this. And it goes further than just the Parkland doctors.
People's memories are influenced by things they see and hear long
after the remembered event. Bonnie Ray Williams initially said
he heard two shots; a few days later, he remembered hearing three.
When asked, he said that he went home to think about it, and the
more he thought about it, the better his memory got ;-). Or, look
at Jackie's testimony as to how she decided she heard three shots;
it involves her reading a magazine. Or, compare the drawing James
Sibert made of the head wounds for the HSCA vs the one that he
made for the ARRB. Or, Connally talking to Agronsky vs what he said
later. With almost any witness, you can find memory creep in their
testimony over time. There are plenty of examples.
Chris's problem is that his thinking is so rigid that he believes
it only happens to WC-friendly witnesses, and that whatever someone
said to the ARRB must be what they always said before and after.
The memory creep (my term for it,BTW) is an important factor to
consider, but it rarely is. And you need to separate those with
"creepy" memories from the outright bullshit artists.
Carrico really does seem to have moved the wound forwards, even
if it's not very far. Most likely from the influence of seeing
the autopsy materials for NOVA in '88. What I thought of as
important in the CSPAN interview is not his description of the
wounds, but his description of what was done, when, why, and in
what sequence during the futile attempts to treat JFK.
You are making a good point about witnesses *in general.*
But with the head wound witnesses, I think something different is
going on.
Buffs look at early verbal descriptions, and interpret them the way
they *want* to. But the descriptions are not very precise.
For example, "occipital area." It does not necessarily mean occipital
bone.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/occipital.htm
And buffs seem to be quite selective in what part of witness testimony
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg2.txt
<Quote on>---------------------------------------
. . . was a much larger wound than the neck wound. It was five by
seven centimeters, something like that, 2 1/2 by 3 inches, ragged, had
blood and hair all around it, located in the part of the parietal
occipital region.
Could you just state in layman's terms the approximate place that
would be?
That would be above and posterior to the ear, almost from the crown of
the head, and there was brain tissue showing through.
<Quote off>-----------------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/carrico_skull.GIF
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
The problem in this case is that the wound that was in the BOH leaving
Parkland hospital, was much expanded after Humes and Boswell got at the
head at Bethesda. They intentionally expanded the BOH wound which was the
size of a baseball, and made it go around the right side of the head, and
a bit of the top. That expansion shows in the descriptions of the wound
before and after leaving Parkland.
Another fine example of you convincing yourself something happened because it had to have happened for your theories to be valid.
Post by mainframetech
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
In the case of the BOH wound BEFORE Bethesda, the list of Over 39
witnesses all agree that the wound was confined to the Occipital-parietal
area at the BOH. A reasonable amount of corroboration.
Occipital-parietal is perfectly consistent with the AR description of the
defect although the report stated it also extend into the temporal region.
That would be the skull flap we see opened up in several of the leaked
photos including the stare-of-death and BOH photos. That temporal flap is
apparent in the Z-film about a millisecond after the bullet blew open the
upper right side of JFK's head. Just what we see in the film and just what
Zapruder described in a live TV interview before he even saw his film.
The wound didn't extend to the temporal area before the body left
Parkland. Too many witnesses and drawings prove it. Later it did because
it was extended by Hume and Boswell. The flap therefore was present when
the AR was written. But it was created by Humes, not a bullet. Humes put
it there so that it would fool the suckers that would think it was a
bullet from above and behind.
The flap was present in the Z-film. How did Humes and Boswell know to
alter the wound to match what was in the Z-film? How did they know to
alter the wound to match what Zapruder and Bill Newman described?
And how did they know that other undiscovered and unviewed films wouldn't
expose the alterations?
Stop trying to be logical. How can we construct a conspiracy theory if
you're going to do that.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
As Josiah Thompson pointed out: "[T]he critical problem for anyone
thinking of altering the Zapruder film is not the Muchmore and Nix films.
It is all the other films you don't know about - films developed outside
Dallas by people from out-of-state who just happened by...or by foreign
tourists who would get their films developed in their home countries. Any
one of these unknown films could expose your alteration."
That makes too much sense. Cut it out.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
The same principle applies to altering the wounds as well as the Z film.
How would the alterationists (of the film of the wounds, et cetera) know -
or be confident in - that other films or evidence wouldn't expose their
acts?
You're making this difficult.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Of course, we know the answer: they can do anything. They'd just alter
those films and cover up that other evidence.
Finally, you got the right answer.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
We are trying to reason with, well, sorry for the word but so be it,
fanatics.
Why do we do that?
Remember, about 40 years later "they" fired a missile at the Pentagon. In
broad daylight. Near a congested highway that led to the airport and D.C.
I drove that road hundreds of times when I lived in Northern Virginia. On
the right is the exit to the airport, to the left is the Pentagon.
Straight ahead is D.C. and the 14th street bridge - the one that was hit
by the plane during the snowstorm.
It's a major artery into Washington from Northern Va.
It's absurd that anyone thought they could fire a missile and not have it
be seen.
How come you didn't see the plane?
What if only 2 people actually saw the plane and both were killed? Then
there would be nobody alive who actually saw the plane. How come none of
the thousands of people in the building saw the plane coming? How come
it didn't show up on their radar?
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-04-03 23:46:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Excellent find, Mitch. I don't have time to watch the whole thing right
now but I got through the first 18 minutes and it was quite informative.
Most significant so far is at the 16:45 mark where Dr. Carrico describes
the head wound and uses his hand to show the location and extent of the
wound and it fits perfectly with the autopsy report description of the
large defect on the upper right side of JFK's head. With his fingers he
demonstrated a large wound about the size of a grapefruit and he place his
hand above his right ear.
Exactly what we see in the Z-film and exactly
what was described in the autopsy report. I look forward to the excuse
Chris comes up with to dismiss this account by Dr. Carrico which is
completely incompatible with his claim the body was altered at Bethesda to
extend the wound in the upper right side of the head. It was already there
per Dr. Carrico. Will Chris now claim that Carrico was pressured to lie,
his memory was faulty, or he was just incompetent. I can't remember if Dr.
Carrico was one of Chris's 39 witnesses to a large hole in the back of
JFK's head. If he is, he might want to drop him off the list. Carrico
doesn't help his cause.
I believe many doctors saw the Autopsy Report (AR) and superposed that
memory over their own real memory.
I knew you would invent an excuse but I thought you could do better than
that.
This is going to surprise a lot of people, but I kinda agree with
Chris on this. And it goes further than just the Parkland doctors.
People's memories are influenced by things they see and hear long
after the remembered event. Bonnie Ray Williams initially said
he heard two shots; a few days later, he remembered hearing three.
When asked, he said that he went home to think about it, and the
more he thought about it, the better his memory got ;-). Or, look
at Jackie's testimony as to how she decided she heard three shots;
it involves her reading a magazine. Or, compare the drawing James
Sibert made of the head wounds for the HSCA vs the one that he
made for the ARRB. Or, Connally talking to Agronsky vs what he said
later. With almost any witness, you can find memory creep in their
testimony over time. There are plenty of examples.
Chris's problem is that his thinking is so rigid that he believes
it only happens to WC-friendly witnesses, and that whatever someone
said to the ARRB must be what they always said before and after.
The memory creep (my term for it,BTW) is an important factor to
consider, but it rarely is. And you need to separate those with
"creepy" memories from the outright bullshit artists.
Carrico really does seem to have moved the wound forwards, even
if it's not very far. Most likely from the influence of seeing
the autopsy materials for NOVA in '88. What I thought of as
important in the CSPAN interview is not his description of the
wounds, but his description of what was done, when, why, and in
what sequence during the futile attempts to treat JFK.
You are making a good point about witnesses *in general.*
But with the head wound witnesses, I think something different is
going on.
Buffs look at early verbal descriptions, and interpret them the way
they *want* to. But the descriptions are not very precise.
For example, "occipital area." It does not necessarily mean occipital
bone.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/occipital.htm
And buffs seem to be quite selective in what part of witness testimony
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg2.txt
<Quote on>---------------------------------------
. . . was a much larger wound than the neck wound. It was five by
seven centimeters, something like that, 2 1/2 by 3 inches, ragged, had
blood and hair all around it, located in the part of the parietal
occipital region.
Could you just state in layman's terms the approximate place that
would be?
That would be above and posterior to the ear, almost from the crown of
the head, and there was brain tissue showing through.
<Quote off>-----------------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/carrico_skull.GIF
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
The problem in this case is that the wound that was in the BOH leaving
Parkland hospital, was much expanded after Humes and Boswell got at the
head at Bethesda. They intentionally expanded the BOH wound which was the
size of a baseball, and made it go around the right side of the head, and
a bit of the top. That expansion shows in the descriptions of the wound
before and after leaving Parkland.
Another fine example of you convincing yourself something happened because it had to have happened for your theories to be valid.
Post by mainframetech
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
In the case of the BOH wound BEFORE Bethesda, the list of Over 39
witnesses all agree that the wound was confined to the Occipital-parietal
area at the BOH. A reasonable amount of corroboration.
Occipital-parietal is perfectly consistent with the AR description of the
defect although the report stated it also extend into the temporal region.
That would be the skull flap we see opened up in several of the leaked
photos including the stare-of-death and BOH photos. That temporal flap is
apparent in the Z-film about a millisecond after the bullet blew open the
upper right side of JFK's head. Just what we see in the film and just what
Zapruder described in a live TV interview before he even saw his film.
The wound didn't extend to the temporal area before the body left
Parkland. Too many witnesses and drawings prove it. Later it did because
it was extended by Hume and Boswell. The flap therefore was present when
the AR was written. But it was created by Humes, not a bullet. Humes put
it there so that it would fool the suckers that would think it was a
bullet from above and behind.
The flap was present in the Z-film. How did Humes and Boswell know to
alter the wound to match what was in the Z-film? How did they know to
alter the wound to match what Zapruder and Bill Newman described?
And how did they know that other undiscovered and unviewed films wouldn't
expose the alterations?
Stop trying to be logical. How can we construct a conspiracy theory if
you're going to do that.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
As Josiah Thompson pointed out: "[T]he critical problem for anyone
thinking of altering the Zapruder film is not the Muchmore and Nix films.
It is all the other films you don't know about - films developed outside
Dallas by people from out-of-state who just happened by...or by foreign
tourists who would get their films developed in their home countries. Any
one of these unknown films could expose your alteration."
That makes too much sense. Cut it out.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
The same principle applies to altering the wounds as well as the Z film.
How would the alterationists (of the film of the wounds, et cetera) know -
or be confident in - that other films or evidence wouldn't expose their
acts?
You're making this difficult.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Of course, we know the answer: they can do anything. They'd just alter
those films and cover up that other evidence.
Finally, you got the right answer.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
We are trying to reason with, well, sorry for the word but so be it,
fanatics.
Why do we do that?
Remember, about 40 years later "they" fired a missile at the Pentagon. In
broad daylight. Near a congested highway that led to the airport and D.C.
I drove that road hundreds of times when I lived in Northern Virginia. On
the right is the exit to the airport, to the left is the Pentagon.
Straight ahead is D.C. and the 14th street bridge - the one that was hit
by the plane during the snowstorm.
It's a major artery into Washington from Northern Va.
It's absurd that anyone thought they could fire a missile and not have it
be seen.
How come you didn't see the plane?
What if only 2 people actually saw the plane and both were killed? Then
there would be nobody alive who actually saw the plane. How come none of
the thousands of people in the building saw the plane coming? How come
it didn't show up on their radar?
How come the Martians didn't stop the attacks?

And the leprechauns, where were the leprechauns?
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-05 17:01:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Excellent find, Mitch. I don't have time to watch the whole thing right
now but I got through the first 18 minutes and it was quite informative.
Most significant so far is at the 16:45 mark where Dr. Carrico describes
the head wound and uses his hand to show the location and extent of the
wound and it fits perfectly with the autopsy report description of the
large defect on the upper right side of JFK's head. With his fingers he
demonstrated a large wound about the size of a grapefruit and he place his
hand above his right ear.
Exactly what we see in the Z-film and exactly
what was described in the autopsy report. I look forward to the excuse
Chris comes up with to dismiss this account by Dr. Carrico which is
completely incompatible with his claim the body was altered at Bethesda to
extend the wound in the upper right side of the head. It was already there
per Dr. Carrico. Will Chris now claim that Carrico was pressured to lie,
his memory was faulty, or he was just incompetent. I can't remember if Dr.
Carrico was one of Chris's 39 witnesses to a large hole in the back of
JFK's head. If he is, he might want to drop him off the list. Carrico
doesn't help his cause.
I believe many doctors saw the Autopsy Report (AR) and superposed that
memory over their own real memory.
I knew you would invent an excuse but I thought you could do better than
that.
This is going to surprise a lot of people, but I kinda agree with
Chris on this. And it goes further than just the Parkland doctors.
People's memories are influenced by things they see and hear long
after the remembered event. Bonnie Ray Williams initially said
he heard two shots; a few days later, he remembered hearing three.
When asked, he said that he went home to think about it, and the
more he thought about it, the better his memory got ;-). Or, look
at Jackie's testimony as to how she decided she heard three shots;
it involves her reading a magazine. Or, compare the drawing James
Sibert made of the head wounds for the HSCA vs the one that he
made for the ARRB. Or, Connally talking to Agronsky vs what he said
later. With almost any witness, you can find memory creep in their
testimony over time. There are plenty of examples.
Chris's problem is that his thinking is so rigid that he believes
it only happens to WC-friendly witnesses, and that whatever someone
said to the ARRB must be what they always said before and after.
The memory creep (my term for it,BTW) is an important factor to
consider, but it rarely is. And you need to separate those with
"creepy" memories from the outright bullshit artists.
Carrico really does seem to have moved the wound forwards, even
if it's not very far. Most likely from the influence of seeing
the autopsy materials for NOVA in '88. What I thought of as
important in the CSPAN interview is not his description of the
wounds, but his description of what was done, when, why, and in
what sequence during the futile attempts to treat JFK.
You are making a good point about witnesses *in general.*
But with the head wound witnesses, I think something different is
going on.
Buffs look at early verbal descriptions, and interpret them the way
they *want* to. But the descriptions are not very precise.
For example, "occipital area." It does not necessarily mean occipital
bone.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/occipital.htm
And buffs seem to be quite selective in what part of witness testimony
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg2.txt
<Quote on>---------------------------------------
. . . was a much larger wound than the neck wound. It was five by
seven centimeters, something like that, 2 1/2 by 3 inches, ragged, had
blood and hair all around it, located in the part of the parietal
occipital region.
Could you just state in layman's terms the approximate place that
would be?
That would be above and posterior to the ear, almost from the crown of
the head, and there was brain tissue showing through.
<Quote off>-----------------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/carrico_skull.GIF
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
The problem in this case is that the wound that was in the BOH leaving
Parkland hospital, was much expanded after Humes and Boswell got at the
head at Bethesda. They intentionally expanded the BOH wound which was the
size of a baseball, and made it go around the right side of the head, and
a bit of the top. That expansion shows in the descriptions of the wound
before and after leaving Parkland.
Another fine example of you convincing yourself something happened because it had to have happened for your theories to be valid.
Post by mainframetech
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
In the case of the BOH wound BEFORE Bethesda, the list of Over 39
witnesses all agree that the wound was confined to the Occipital-parietal
area at the BOH. A reasonable amount of corroboration.
Occipital-parietal is perfectly consistent with the AR description of the
defect although the report stated it also extend into the temporal region.
That would be the skull flap we see opened up in several of the leaked
photos including the stare-of-death and BOH photos. That temporal flap is
apparent in the Z-film about a millisecond after the bullet blew open the
upper right side of JFK's head. Just what we see in the film and just what
Zapruder described in a live TV interview before he even saw his film.
The wound didn't extend to the temporal area before the body left
Parkland. Too many witnesses and drawings prove it. Later it did because
it was extended by Hume and Boswell. The flap therefore was present when
the AR was written. But it was created by Humes, not a bullet. Humes put
it there so that it would fool the suckers that would think it was a
bullet from above and behind.
The flap was present in the Z-film. How did Humes and Boswell know to
alter the wound to match what was in the Z-film? How did they know to
alter the wound to match what Zapruder and Bill Newman described?
And how did they know that other undiscovered and unviewed films wouldn't
expose the alterations?
Stop trying to be logical. How can we construct a conspiracy theory if
you're going to do that.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
As Josiah Thompson pointed out: "[T]he critical problem for anyone
thinking of altering the Zapruder film is not the Muchmore and Nix films.
It is all the other films you don't know about - films developed outside
Dallas by people from out-of-state who just happened by...or by foreign
tourists who would get their films developed in their home countries. Any
one of these unknown films could expose your alteration."
That makes too much sense. Cut it out.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
The same principle applies to altering the wounds as well as the Z film.
How would the alterationists (of the film of the wounds, et cetera) know -
or be confident in - that other films or evidence wouldn't expose their
acts?
You're making this difficult.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Of course, we know the answer: they can do anything. They'd just alter
those films and cover up that other evidence.
Finally, you got the right answer.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
We are trying to reason with, well, sorry for the word but so be it,
fanatics.
Why do we do that?
Remember, about 40 years later "they" fired a missile at the Pentagon. In
broad daylight. Near a congested highway that led to the airport and D.C.
I drove that road hundreds of times when I lived in Northern Virginia. On
the right is the exit to the airport, to the left is the Pentagon.
Straight ahead is D.C. and the 14th street bridge - the one that was hit
by the plane during the snowstorm.
It's a major artery into Washington from Northern Va.
It's absurd that anyone thought they could fire a missile and not have it
be seen.
How come you didn't see the plane?
What if only 2 people actually saw the plane and both were killed? Then
there would be nobody alive who actually saw the plane. How come none of
the thousands of people in the building saw the plane coming? How come
it didn't show up on their radar?
How come the Martians didn't stop the attacks?
I see you can't answer MY questions so you make up jokes to compensate
for your lack of knowledge. There were no Martians. Do you believe in
Martians?
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
And the leprechauns, where were the leprechauns?
Leprechauns are in Ireland, not Washington.
OHLeeRedux
2018-04-05 23:41:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Excellent find, Mitch. I don't have time to watch the whole thing right
now but I got through the first 18 minutes and it was quite informative.
Most significant so far is at the 16:45 mark where Dr. Carrico describes
the head wound and uses his hand to show the location and extent of the
wound and it fits perfectly with the autopsy report description of the
large defect on the upper right side of JFK's head. With his fingers he
demonstrated a large wound about the size of a grapefruit and he place his
hand above his right ear.
Exactly what we see in the Z-film and exactly
what was described in the autopsy report. I look forward to the excuse
Chris comes up with to dismiss this account by Dr. Carrico which is
completely incompatible with his claim the body was altered at Bethesda to
extend the wound in the upper right side of the head. It was already there
per Dr. Carrico. Will Chris now claim that Carrico was pressured to lie,
his memory was faulty, or he was just incompetent. I can't remember if Dr.
Carrico was one of Chris's 39 witnesses to a large hole in the back of
JFK's head. If he is, he might want to drop him off the list. Carrico
doesn't help his cause.
I believe many doctors saw the Autopsy Report (AR) and superposed that
memory over their own real memory.
I knew you would invent an excuse but I thought you could do better than
that.
This is going to surprise a lot of people, but I kinda agree with
Chris on this. And it goes further than just the Parkland doctors.
People's memories are influenced by things they see and hear long
after the remembered event. Bonnie Ray Williams initially said
he heard two shots; a few days later, he remembered hearing three.
When asked, he said that he went home to think about it, and the
more he thought about it, the better his memory got ;-). Or, look
at Jackie's testimony as to how she decided she heard three shots;
it involves her reading a magazine. Or, compare the drawing James
Sibert made of the head wounds for the HSCA vs the one that he
made for the ARRB. Or, Connally talking to Agronsky vs what he said
later. With almost any witness, you can find memory creep in their
testimony over time. There are plenty of examples.
Chris's problem is that his thinking is so rigid that he believes
it only happens to WC-friendly witnesses, and that whatever someone
said to the ARRB must be what they always said before and after.
The memory creep (my term for it,BTW) is an important factor to
consider, but it rarely is. And you need to separate those with
"creepy" memories from the outright bullshit artists.
Carrico really does seem to have moved the wound forwards, even
if it's not very far. Most likely from the influence of seeing
the autopsy materials for NOVA in '88. What I thought of as
important in the CSPAN interview is not his description of the
wounds, but his description of what was done, when, why, and in
what sequence during the futile attempts to treat JFK.
You are making a good point about witnesses *in general.*
But with the head wound witnesses, I think something different is
going on.
Buffs look at early verbal descriptions, and interpret them the way
they *want* to. But the descriptions are not very precise.
For example, "occipital area." It does not necessarily mean occipital
bone.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/occipital.htm
And buffs seem to be quite selective in what part of witness testimony
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg2.txt
<Quote on>---------------------------------------
. . . was a much larger wound than the neck wound. It was five by
seven centimeters, something like that, 2 1/2 by 3 inches, ragged, had
blood and hair all around it, located in the part of the parietal
occipital region.
Could you just state in layman's terms the approximate place that
would be?
That would be above and posterior to the ear, almost from the crown of
the head, and there was brain tissue showing through.
<Quote off>-----------------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/carrico_skull.GIF
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
The problem in this case is that the wound that was in the BOH leaving
Parkland hospital, was much expanded after Humes and Boswell got at the
head at Bethesda. They intentionally expanded the BOH wound which was the
size of a baseball, and made it go around the right side of the head, and
a bit of the top. That expansion shows in the descriptions of the wound
before and after leaving Parkland.
Another fine example of you convincing yourself something happened because it had to have happened for your theories to be valid.
Post by mainframetech
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
In the case of the BOH wound BEFORE Bethesda, the list of Over 39
witnesses all agree that the wound was confined to the Occipital-parietal
area at the BOH. A reasonable amount of corroboration.
Occipital-parietal is perfectly consistent with the AR description of the
defect although the report stated it also extend into the temporal region.
That would be the skull flap we see opened up in several of the leaked
photos including the stare-of-death and BOH photos. That temporal flap is
apparent in the Z-film about a millisecond after the bullet blew open the
upper right side of JFK's head. Just what we see in the film and just what
Zapruder described in a live TV interview before he even saw his film.
The wound didn't extend to the temporal area before the body left
Parkland. Too many witnesses and drawings prove it. Later it did because
it was extended by Hume and Boswell. The flap therefore was present when
the AR was written. But it was created by Humes, not a bullet. Humes put
it there so that it would fool the suckers that would think it was a
bullet from above and behind.
The flap was present in the Z-film. How did Humes and Boswell know to
alter the wound to match what was in the Z-film? How did they know to
alter the wound to match what Zapruder and Bill Newman described?
And how did they know that other undiscovered and unviewed films wouldn't
expose the alterations?
Stop trying to be logical. How can we construct a conspiracy theory if
you're going to do that.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
As Josiah Thompson pointed out: "[T]he critical problem for anyone
thinking of altering the Zapruder film is not the Muchmore and Nix films.
It is all the other films you don't know about - films developed outside
Dallas by people from out-of-state who just happened by...or by foreign
tourists who would get their films developed in their home countries. Any
one of these unknown films could expose your alteration."
That makes too much sense. Cut it out.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
The same principle applies to altering the wounds as well as the Z film.
How would the alterationists (of the film of the wounds, et cetera) know -
or be confident in - that other films or evidence wouldn't expose their
acts?
You're making this difficult.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Of course, we know the answer: they can do anything. They'd just alter
those films and cover up that other evidence.
Finally, you got the right answer.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
We are trying to reason with, well, sorry for the word but so be it,
fanatics.
Why do we do that?
Remember, about 40 years later "they" fired a missile at the Pentagon. In
broad daylight. Near a congested highway that led to the airport and D.C.
I drove that road hundreds of times when I lived in Northern Virginia. On
the right is the exit to the airport, to the left is the Pentagon.
Straight ahead is D.C. and the 14th street bridge - the one that was hit
by the plane during the snowstorm.
It's a major artery into Washington from Northern Va.
It's absurd that anyone thought they could fire a missile and not have it
be seen.
How come you didn't see the plane?
What if only 2 people actually saw the plane and both were killed? Then
there would be nobody alive who actually saw the plane. How come none of
the thousands of people in the building saw the plane coming? How come
it didn't show up on their radar?
How come the Martians didn't stop the attacks?
I see you can't answer MY questions so you make up jokes to compensate
YOUR questions are irrelevant, just like their creator.
mainframetech
2018-03-31 23:06:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Excellent find, Mitch. I don't have time to watch the whole thing right
now but I got through the first 18 minutes and it was quite informative.
Most significant so far is at the 16:45 mark where Dr. Carrico describes
the head wound and uses his hand to show the location and extent of the
wound and it fits perfectly with the autopsy report description of the
large defect on the upper right side of JFK's head. With his fingers he
demonstrated a large wound about the size of a grapefruit and he place his
hand above his right ear.
Exactly what we see in the Z-film and exactly
what was described in the autopsy report. I look forward to the excuse
Chris comes up with to dismiss this account by Dr. Carrico which is
completely incompatible with his claim the body was altered at Bethesda to
extend the wound in the upper right side of the head. It was already there
per Dr. Carrico. Will Chris now claim that Carrico was pressured to lie,
his memory was faulty, or he was just incompetent. I can't remember if Dr.
Carrico was one of Chris's 39 witnesses to a large hole in the back of
JFK's head. If he is, he might want to drop him off the list. Carrico
doesn't help his cause.
I believe many doctors saw the Autopsy Report (AR) and superposed that
memory over their own real memory.
I knew you would invent an excuse but I thought you could do better than
that.
This is going to surprise a lot of people, but I kinda agree with
Chris on this. And it goes further than just the Parkland doctors.
People's memories are influenced by things they see and hear long
after the remembered event. Bonnie Ray Williams initially said
he heard two shots; a few days later, he remembered hearing three.
When asked, he said that he went home to think about it, and the
more he thought about it, the better his memory got ;-). Or, look
at Jackie's testimony as to how she decided she heard three shots;
it involves her reading a magazine. Or, compare the drawing James
Sibert made of the head wounds for the HSCA vs the one that he
made for the ARRB. Or, Connally talking to Agronsky vs what he said
later. With almost any witness, you can find memory creep in their
testimony over time. There are plenty of examples.
Chris's problem is that his thinking is so rigid that he believes
it only happens to WC-friendly witnesses, and that whatever someone
said to the ARRB must be what they always said before and after.
The memory creep (my term for it,BTW) is an important factor to
consider, but it rarely is. And you need to separate those with
"creepy" memories from the outright bullshit artists.
Carrico really does seem to have moved the wound forwards, even
if it's not very far. Most likely from the influence of seeing
the autopsy materials for NOVA in '88. What I thought of as
important in the CSPAN interview is not his description of the
wounds, but his description of what was done, when, why, and in
what sequence during the futile attempts to treat JFK.
You are making a good point about witnesses *in general.*
But with the head wound witnesses, I think something different is
going on.
Buffs look at early verbal descriptions, and interpret them the way
they *want* to. But the descriptions are not very precise.
For example, "occipital area." It does not necessarily mean occipital
bone.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/occipital.htm
And buffs seem to be quite selective in what part of witness testimony
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg2.txt
<Quote on>---------------------------------------
. . . was a much larger wound than the neck wound. It was five by
seven centimeters, something like that, 2 1/2 by 3 inches, ragged, had
blood and hair all around it, located in the part of the parietal
occipital region.
Could you just state in layman's terms the approximate place that
would be?
That would be above and posterior to the ear, almost from the crown of
the head, and there was brain tissue showing through.
<Quote off>-----------------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/carrico_skull.GIF
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
The problem in this case is that the wound that was in the BOH leaving
Parkland hospital, was much expanded after Humes and Boswell got at the
head at Bethesda. They intentionally expanded the BOH wound which was the
size of a baseball, and made it go around the right side of the head, and
a bit of the top. That expansion shows in the descriptions of the wound
before and after leaving Parkland.
Another fine example of you convincing yourself something happened because it had to have happened for your theories to be valid.
Post by mainframetech
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
In the case of the BOH wound BEFORE Bethesda, the list of Over 39
witnesses all agree that the wound was confined to the Occipital-parietal
area at the BOH. A reasonable amount of corroboration.
Occipital-parietal is perfectly consistent with the AR description of the
defect although the report stated it also extend into the temporal region.
That would be the skull flap we see opened up in several of the leaked
photos including the stare-of-death and BOH photos. That temporal flap is
apparent in the Z-film about a millisecond after the bullet blew open the
upper right side of JFK's head. Just what we see in the film and just what
Zapruder described in a live TV interview before he even saw his film.
The wound didn't extend to the temporal area before the body left
Parkland. Too many witnesses and drawings prove it. Later it did because
it was extended by Hume and Boswell. The flap therefore was present when
the AR was written. But it was created by Humes, not a bullet. Humes put
it there so that it would fool the suckers that would think it was a
bullet from above and behind.
The flap was present in the Z-film. How did Humes and Boswell know to
alter the wound to match what was in the Z-film? How did they know to
alter the wound to match what Zapruder and Bill Newman described?
And how did they know that other undiscovered and unviewed films wouldn't
expose the alterations?
The answer rests on the statements of the over 39 witnesses to the
'large hole' in the BOH of JFK. And many of those 39 were medically
trained and had looked down at the wound from only 2 feet away. How 5 or
6 people saw a flap appear where there wasn't one is anybody's guess, but
it wasn't what was really there on the head while in the motorcade. The
flap was created by Humes and Boswell BEFORE the autopsy, so it might have
been duplicated in the alteration to the Z-film later, and the match
happened in reverse of what was thought.

Nurse Diana Bowron was the last person to see the body and the head
wound before the body was put in the Bronze casket and left Parkland
hospital. She cleaned up the hair and body. She was clear that the only
major wound she saw was the 'large hole' in the BOH, and NOT on the side.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
As Josiah Thompson pointed out: "[T]he critical problem for anyone
thinking of altering the Zapruder film is not the Muchmore and Nix films.
It is all the other films you don't know about - films developed outside
Dallas by people from out-of-state who just happened by...or by foreign
tourists who would get their films developed in their home countries. Any
one of these unknown films could expose your alteration."
Strange they didn't then.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
The same principle applies to altering the wounds as well as the Z film.
How would the alterationists (of the film of the wounds, et cetera) know -
or be confident in - that other films or evidence wouldn't expose their
acts?
Of course, we know the answer: they can do anything. They'd just alter
those films and cover up that other evidence.
We are trying to reason with, well, sorry for the word but so be it,
fanatics.
and you think there are no "fanatics" in the LN bunch? I have news
for you. They are so wedded to their WCR that no matter what evidence is
shown to them, they ignore it and later can't even remember they saw it.
They see only the story told in the WCR, theories and all.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-02 14:53:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Excellent find, Mitch. I don't have time to watch the whole thing right
now but I got through the first 18 minutes and it was quite informative.
Most significant so far is at the 16:45 mark where Dr. Carrico describes
the head wound and uses his hand to show the location and extent of the
wound and it fits perfectly with the autopsy report description of the
large defect on the upper right side of JFK's head. With his fingers he
demonstrated a large wound about the size of a grapefruit and he place his
hand above his right ear.
Exactly what we see in the Z-film and exactly
what was described in the autopsy report. I look forward to the excuse
Chris comes up with to dismiss this account by Dr. Carrico which is
completely incompatible with his claim the body was altered at Bethesda to
extend the wound in the upper right side of the head. It was already there
per Dr. Carrico. Will Chris now claim that Carrico was pressured to lie,
his memory was faulty, or he was just incompetent. I can't remember if Dr.
Carrico was one of Chris's 39 witnesses to a large hole in the back of
JFK's head. If he is, he might want to drop him off the list. Carrico
doesn't help his cause.
I believe many doctors saw the Autopsy Report (AR) and superposed that
memory over their own real memory.
I knew you would invent an excuse but I thought you could do better than
that.
This is going to surprise a lot of people, but I kinda agree with
Chris on this. And it goes further than just the Parkland doctors.
People's memories are influenced by things they see and hear long
after the remembered event. Bonnie Ray Williams initially said
he heard two shots; a few days later, he remembered hearing three.
When asked, he said that he went home to think about it, and the
more he thought about it, the better his memory got ;-). Or, look
at Jackie's testimony as to how she decided she heard three shots;
it involves her reading a magazine. Or, compare the drawing James
Sibert made of the head wounds for the HSCA vs the one that he
made for the ARRB. Or, Connally talking to Agronsky vs what he said
later. With almost any witness, you can find memory creep in their
testimony over time. There are plenty of examples.
Chris's problem is that his thinking is so rigid that he believes
it only happens to WC-friendly witnesses, and that whatever someone
said to the ARRB must be what they always said before and after.
The memory creep (my term for it,BTW) is an important factor to
consider, but it rarely is. And you need to separate those with
"creepy" memories from the outright bullshit artists.
Carrico really does seem to have moved the wound forwards, even
if it's not very far. Most likely from the influence of seeing
the autopsy materials for NOVA in '88. What I thought of as
important in the CSPAN interview is not his description of the
wounds, but his description of what was done, when, why, and in
what sequence during the futile attempts to treat JFK.
You are making a good point about witnesses *in general.*
But with the head wound witnesses, I think something different is
going on.
Buffs look at early verbal descriptions, and interpret them the way
they *want* to. But the descriptions are not very precise.
For example, "occipital area." It does not necessarily mean occipital
bone.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/occipital.htm
And buffs seem to be quite selective in what part of witness testimony
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg2.txt
<Quote on>---------------------------------------
. . . was a much larger wound than the neck wound. It was five by
seven centimeters, something like that, 2 1/2 by 3 inches, ragged, had
blood and hair all around it, located in the part of the parietal
occipital region.
Could you just state in layman's terms the approximate place that
would be?
That would be above and posterior to the ear, almost from the crown of
the head, and there was brain tissue showing through.
<Quote off>-----------------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/carrico_skull.GIF
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
The problem in this case is that the wound that was in the BOH leaving
Parkland hospital, was much expanded after Humes and Boswell got at the
head at Bethesda. They intentionally expanded the BOH wound which was the
size of a baseball, and made it go around the right side of the head, and
a bit of the top. That expansion shows in the descriptions of the wound
before and after leaving Parkland.
Another fine example of you convincing yourself something happened because it had to have happened for your theories to be valid.
Post by mainframetech
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
In the case of the BOH wound BEFORE Bethesda, the list of Over 39
witnesses all agree that the wound was confined to the Occipital-parietal
area at the BOH. A reasonable amount of corroboration.
Occipital-parietal is perfectly consistent with the AR description of the
defect although the report stated it also extend into the temporal region.
That would be the skull flap we see opened up in several of the leaked
photos including the stare-of-death and BOH photos. That temporal flap is
apparent in the Z-film about a millisecond after the bullet blew open the
upper right side of JFK's head. Just what we see in the film and just what
Zapruder described in a live TV interview before he even saw his film.
The wound didn't extend to the temporal area before the body left
Parkland. Too many witnesses and drawings prove it. Later it did because
it was extended by Hume and Boswell. The flap therefore was present when
the AR was written. But it was created by Humes, not a bullet. Humes put
it there so that it would fool the suckers that would think it was a
bullet from above and behind.
The flap was present in the Z-film. How did Humes and Boswell know to
alter the wound to match what was in the Z-film? How did they know to
alter the wound to match what Zapruder and Bill Newman described?
And how did they know that other undiscovered and unviewed films wouldn't
expose the alterations?
The answer rests on the statements of the over 39 witnesses to the
'large hole' in the BOH of JFK. And many of those 39 were medically
trained and had looked down at the wound from only 2 feet away. How 5 or
6 people saw a flap appear where there wasn't one is anybody's guess, but
it wasn't what was really there on the head while in the motorcade. The
flap was created by Humes and Boswell BEFORE the autopsy, so it might have
been duplicated in the alteration to the Z-film later, and the match
happened in reverse of what was thought.
Nurse Diana Bowron was the last person to see the body and the head
wound before the body was put in the Bronze casket and left Parkland
hospital. She cleaned up the hair and body. She was clear that the only
major wound she saw was the 'large hole' in the BOH, and NOT on the side.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
As Josiah Thompson pointed out: "[T]he critical problem for anyone
thinking of altering the Zapruder film is not the Muchmore and Nix films.
It is all the other films you don't know about - films developed outside
Dallas by people from out-of-state who just happened by...or by foreign
tourists who would get their films developed in their home countries. Any
one of these unknown films could expose your alteration."
Strange they didn't then.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
The same principle applies to altering the wounds as well as the Z film.
How would the alterationists (of the film of the wounds, et cetera) know -
or be confident in - that other films or evidence wouldn't expose their
acts?
Of course, we know the answer: they can do anything. They'd just alter
those films and cover up that other evidence.
We are trying to reason with, well, sorry for the word but so be it,
fanatics.
and you think there are no "fanatics" in the LN bunch? I have news
for you. They are so wedded to their WCR that no matter what evidence is
shown to them, they ignore it and later can't even remember they saw it.
They see only the story told in the WCR, theories and all.
Chris
They can't even see a bullet hole that everyone else can. They are a
dwindling minority desperately grasping at straws and like Trump keep
shouting, "No Conspiracy, no conspiracy."
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-04-03 00:35:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Excellent find, Mitch. I don't have time to watch the whole thing right
now but I got through the first 18 minutes and it was quite informative.
Most significant so far is at the 16:45 mark where Dr. Carrico describes
the head wound and uses his hand to show the location and extent of the
wound and it fits perfectly with the autopsy report description of the
large defect on the upper right side of JFK's head. With his fingers he
demonstrated a large wound about the size of a grapefruit and he place his
hand above his right ear.
Exactly what we see in the Z-film and exactly
what was described in the autopsy report. I look forward to the excuse
Chris comes up with to dismiss this account by Dr. Carrico which is
completely incompatible with his claim the body was altered at Bethesda to
extend the wound in the upper right side of the head. It was already there
per Dr. Carrico. Will Chris now claim that Carrico was pressured to lie,
his memory was faulty, or he was just incompetent. I can't remember if Dr.
Carrico was one of Chris's 39 witnesses to a large hole in the back of
JFK's head. If he is, he might want to drop him off the list. Carrico
doesn't help his cause.
I believe many doctors saw the Autopsy Report (AR) and superposed that
memory over their own real memory.
I knew you would invent an excuse but I thought you could do better than
that.
This is going to surprise a lot of people, but I kinda agree with
Chris on this. And it goes further than just the Parkland doctors.
People's memories are influenced by things they see and hear long
after the remembered event. Bonnie Ray Williams initially said
he heard two shots; a few days later, he remembered hearing three.
When asked, he said that he went home to think about it, and the
more he thought about it, the better his memory got ;-). Or, look
at Jackie's testimony as to how she decided she heard three shots;
it involves her reading a magazine. Or, compare the drawing James
Sibert made of the head wounds for the HSCA vs the one that he
made for the ARRB. Or, Connally talking to Agronsky vs what he said
later. With almost any witness, you can find memory creep in their
testimony over time. There are plenty of examples.
Chris's problem is that his thinking is so rigid that he believes
it only happens to WC-friendly witnesses, and that whatever someone
said to the ARRB must be what they always said before and after.
The memory creep (my term for it,BTW) is an important factor to
consider, but it rarely is. And you need to separate those with
"creepy" memories from the outright bullshit artists.
Carrico really does seem to have moved the wound forwards, even
if it's not very far. Most likely from the influence of seeing
the autopsy materials for NOVA in '88. What I thought of as
important in the CSPAN interview is not his description of the
wounds, but his description of what was done, when, why, and in
what sequence during the futile attempts to treat JFK.
You are making a good point about witnesses *in general.*
But with the head wound witnesses, I think something different is
going on.
Buffs look at early verbal descriptions, and interpret them the way
they *want* to. But the descriptions are not very precise.
For example, "occipital area." It does not necessarily mean occipital
bone.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/occipital.htm
And buffs seem to be quite selective in what part of witness testimony
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg2.txt
<Quote on>---------------------------------------
. . . was a much larger wound than the neck wound. It was five by
seven centimeters, something like that, 2 1/2 by 3 inches, ragged, had
blood and hair all around it, located in the part of the parietal
occipital region.
Could you just state in layman's terms the approximate place that
would be?
That would be above and posterior to the ear, almost from the crown of
the head, and there was brain tissue showing through.
<Quote off>-----------------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/carrico_skull.GIF
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
The problem in this case is that the wound that was in the BOH leaving
Parkland hospital, was much expanded after Humes and Boswell got at the
head at Bethesda. They intentionally expanded the BOH wound which was the
size of a baseball, and made it go around the right side of the head, and
a bit of the top. That expansion shows in the descriptions of the wound
before and after leaving Parkland.
Another fine example of you convincing yourself something happened because it had to have happened for your theories to be valid.
Post by mainframetech
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
In the case of the BOH wound BEFORE Bethesda, the list of Over 39
witnesses all agree that the wound was confined to the Occipital-parietal
area at the BOH. A reasonable amount of corroboration.
Occipital-parietal is perfectly consistent with the AR description of the
defect although the report stated it also extend into the temporal region.
That would be the skull flap we see opened up in several of the leaked
photos including the stare-of-death and BOH photos. That temporal flap is
apparent in the Z-film about a millisecond after the bullet blew open the
upper right side of JFK's head. Just what we see in the film and just what
Zapruder described in a live TV interview before he even saw his film.
The wound didn't extend to the temporal area before the body left
Parkland. Too many witnesses and drawings prove it. Later it did because
it was extended by Hume and Boswell. The flap therefore was present when
the AR was written. But it was created by Humes, not a bullet. Humes put
it there so that it would fool the suckers that would think it was a
bullet from above and behind.
The flap was present in the Z-film. How did Humes and Boswell know to
alter the wound to match what was in the Z-film? How did they know to
alter the wound to match what Zapruder and Bill Newman described?
And how did they know that other undiscovered and unviewed films wouldn't
expose the alterations?
The answer rests on the statements of the over 39 witnesses to the
'large hole' in the BOH of JFK. And many of those 39 were medically
trained and had looked down at the wound from only 2 feet away. How 5 or
6 people saw a flap appear where there wasn't one is anybody's guess, but
it wasn't what was really there on the head while in the motorcade. The
flap was created by Humes and Boswell BEFORE the autopsy, so it might have
been duplicated in the alteration to the Z-film later, and the match
happened in reverse of what was thought.
Nurse Diana Bowron was the last person to see the body and the head
wound before the body was put in the Bronze casket and left Parkland
hospital. She cleaned up the hair and body. She was clear that the only
major wound she saw was the 'large hole' in the BOH, and NOT on the side.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
As Josiah Thompson pointed out: "[T]he critical problem for anyone
thinking of altering the Zapruder film is not the Muchmore and Nix films.
It is all the other films you don't know about - films developed outside
Dallas by people from out-of-state who just happened by...or by foreign
tourists who would get their films developed in their home countries. Any
one of these unknown films could expose your alteration."
Strange they didn't then.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
The same principle applies to altering the wounds as well as the Z film.
How would the alterationists (of the film of the wounds, et cetera) know -
or be confident in - that other films or evidence wouldn't expose their
acts?
Of course, we know the answer: they can do anything. They'd just alter
those films and cover up that other evidence.
We are trying to reason with, well, sorry for the word but so be it,
fanatics.
and you think there are no "fanatics" in the LN bunch? I have news
for you. They are so wedded to their WCR that no matter what evidence is
shown to them, they ignore it and later can't even remember they saw it.
They see only the story told in the WCR, theories and all.
Chris
They can't even see a bullet hole that everyone else can. They are a
dwindling minority desperately grasping at straws and like Trump keep
shouting, "No Conspiracy, no conspiracy."
Your new conspiracy colleague says that JFK's body was switched on Air
Force One into a different casket and that his wounds were altered. And
the Z film was faked.

Do you find him credible? Or not?
mainframetech
2018-04-03 23:43:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Excellent find, Mitch. I don't have time to watch the whole thing right
now but I got through the first 18 minutes and it was quite informative.
Most significant so far is at the 16:45 mark where Dr. Carrico describes
the head wound and uses his hand to show the location and extent of the
wound and it fits perfectly with the autopsy report description of the
large defect on the upper right side of JFK's head. With his fingers he
demonstrated a large wound about the size of a grapefruit and he place his
hand above his right ear.
Exactly what we see in the Z-film and exactly
what was described in the autopsy report. I look forward to the excuse
Chris comes up with to dismiss this account by Dr. Carrico which is
completely incompatible with his claim the body was altered at Bethesda to
extend the wound in the upper right side of the head. It was already there
per Dr. Carrico. Will Chris now claim that Carrico was pressured to lie,
his memory was faulty, or he was just incompetent. I can't remember if Dr.
Carrico was one of Chris's 39 witnesses to a large hole in the back of
JFK's head. If he is, he might want to drop him off the list. Carrico
doesn't help his cause.
I believe many doctors saw the Autopsy Report (AR) and superposed that
memory over their own real memory.
I knew you would invent an excuse but I thought you could do better than
that.
This is going to surprise a lot of people, but I kinda agree with
Chris on this. And it goes further than just the Parkland doctors.
People's memories are influenced by things they see and hear long
after the remembered event. Bonnie Ray Williams initially said
he heard two shots; a few days later, he remembered hearing three.
When asked, he said that he went home to think about it, and the
more he thought about it, the better his memory got ;-). Or, look
at Jackie's testimony as to how she decided she heard three shots;
it involves her reading a magazine. Or, compare the drawing James
Sibert made of the head wounds for the HSCA vs the one that he
made for the ARRB. Or, Connally talking to Agronsky vs what he said
later. With almost any witness, you can find memory creep in their
testimony over time. There are plenty of examples.
Chris's problem is that his thinking is so rigid that he believes
it only happens to WC-friendly witnesses, and that whatever someone
said to the ARRB must be what they always said before and after.
The memory creep (my term for it,BTW) is an important factor to
consider, but it rarely is. And you need to separate those with
"creepy" memories from the outright bullshit artists.
Carrico really does seem to have moved the wound forwards, even
if it's not very far. Most likely from the influence of seeing
the autopsy materials for NOVA in '88. What I thought of as
important in the CSPAN interview is not his description of the
wounds, but his description of what was done, when, why, and in
what sequence during the futile attempts to treat JFK.
You are making a good point about witnesses *in general.*
But with the head wound witnesses, I think something different is
going on.
Buffs look at early verbal descriptions, and interpret them the way
they *want* to. But the descriptions are not very precise.
For example, "occipital area." It does not necessarily mean occipital
bone.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/occipital.htm
And buffs seem to be quite selective in what part of witness testimony
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg2.txt
<Quote on>---------------------------------------
. . . was a much larger wound than the neck wound. It was five by
seven centimeters, something like that, 2 1/2 by 3 inches, ragged, had
blood and hair all around it, located in the part of the parietal
occipital region.
Could you just state in layman's terms the approximate place that
would be?
That would be above and posterior to the ear, almost from the crown of
the head, and there was brain tissue showing through.
<Quote off>-----------------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/carrico_skull.GIF
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
The problem in this case is that the wound that was in the BOH leaving
Parkland hospital, was much expanded after Humes and Boswell got at the
head at Bethesda. They intentionally expanded the BOH wound which was the
size of a baseball, and made it go around the right side of the head, and
a bit of the top. That expansion shows in the descriptions of the wound
before and after leaving Parkland.
Another fine example of you convincing yourself something happened because it had to have happened for your theories to be valid.
Post by mainframetech
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
In the case of the BOH wound BEFORE Bethesda, the list of Over 39
witnesses all agree that the wound was confined to the Occipital-parietal
area at the BOH. A reasonable amount of corroboration.
Occipital-parietal is perfectly consistent with the AR description of the
defect although the report stated it also extend into the temporal region.
That would be the skull flap we see opened up in several of the leaked
photos including the stare-of-death and BOH photos. That temporal flap is
apparent in the Z-film about a millisecond after the bullet blew open the
upper right side of JFK's head. Just what we see in the film and just what
Zapruder described in a live TV interview before he even saw his film.
The wound didn't extend to the temporal area before the body left
Parkland. Too many witnesses and drawings prove it. Later it did because
it was extended by Hume and Boswell. The flap therefore was present when
the AR was written. But it was created by Humes, not a bullet. Humes put
it there so that it would fool the suckers that would think it was a
bullet from above and behind.
The flap was present in the Z-film. How did Humes and Boswell know to
alter the wound to match what was in the Z-film? How did they know to
alter the wound to match what Zapruder and Bill Newman described?
And how did they know that other undiscovered and unviewed films wouldn't
expose the alterations?
The answer rests on the statements of the over 39 witnesses to the
'large hole' in the BOH of JFK. And many of those 39 were medically
trained and had looked down at the wound from only 2 feet away. How 5 or
6 people saw a flap appear where there wasn't one is anybody's guess, but
it wasn't what was really there on the head while in the motorcade. The
flap was created by Humes and Boswell BEFORE the autopsy, so it might have
been duplicated in the alteration to the Z-film later, and the match
happened in reverse of what was thought.
Nurse Diana Bowron was the last person to see the body and the head
wound before the body was put in the Bronze casket and left Parkland
hospital. She cleaned up the hair and body. She was clear that the only
major wound she saw was the 'large hole' in the BOH, and NOT on the side.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
As Josiah Thompson pointed out: "[T]he critical problem for anyone
thinking of altering the Zapruder film is not the Muchmore and Nix films.
It is all the other films you don't know about - films developed outside
Dallas by people from out-of-state who just happened by...or by foreign
tourists who would get their films developed in their home countries. Any
one of these unknown films could expose your alteration."
Strange they didn't then.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
The same principle applies to altering the wounds as well as the Z film.
How would the alterationists (of the film of the wounds, et cetera) know -
or be confident in - that other films or evidence wouldn't expose their
acts?
Of course, we know the answer: they can do anything. They'd just alter
those films and cover up that other evidence.
We are trying to reason with, well, sorry for the word but so be it,
fanatics.
and you think there are no "fanatics" in the LN bunch? I have news
for you. They are so wedded to their WCR that no matter what evidence is
shown to them, they ignore it and later can't even remember they saw it.
They see only the story told in the WCR, theories and all.
Chris
They can't even see a bullet hole that everyone else can. They are a
dwindling minority desperately grasping at straws and like Trump keep
shouting, "No Conspiracy, no conspiracy."
Your new conspiracy colleague says that JFK's body was switched on Air
Force One into a different casket and that his wounds were altered. And
the Z film was faked.
Do you find him credible? Or not?
Sounds like "credibility" is an OPINION, which doesn't count for
anything without solid evidence.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-04 22:29:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Excellent find, Mitch. I don't have time to watch the whole thing right
now but I got through the first 18 minutes and it was quite informative.
Most significant so far is at the 16:45 mark where Dr. Carrico describes
the head wound and uses his hand to show the location and extent of the
wound and it fits perfectly with the autopsy report description of the
large defect on the upper right side of JFK's head. With his fingers he
demonstrated a large wound about the size of a grapefruit and he place his
hand above his right ear.
Exactly what we see in the Z-film and exactly
what was described in the autopsy report. I look forward to the excuse
Chris comes up with to dismiss this account by Dr. Carrico which is
completely incompatible with his claim the body was altered at Bethesda to
extend the wound in the upper right side of the head. It was already there
per Dr. Carrico. Will Chris now claim that Carrico was pressured to lie,
his memory was faulty, or he was just incompetent. I can't remember if Dr.
Carrico was one of Chris's 39 witnesses to a large hole in the back of
JFK's head. If he is, he might want to drop him off the list. Carrico
doesn't help his cause.
I believe many doctors saw the Autopsy Report (AR) and superposed that
memory over their own real memory.
I knew you would invent an excuse but I thought you could do better than
that.
This is going to surprise a lot of people, but I kinda agree with
Chris on this. And it goes further than just the Parkland doctors.
People's memories are influenced by things they see and hear long
after the remembered event. Bonnie Ray Williams initially said
he heard two shots; a few days later, he remembered hearing three.
When asked, he said that he went home to think about it, and the
more he thought about it, the better his memory got ;-). Or, look
at Jackie's testimony as to how she decided she heard three shots;
it involves her reading a magazine. Or, compare the drawing James
Sibert made of the head wounds for the HSCA vs the one that he
made for the ARRB. Or, Connally talking to Agronsky vs what he said
later. With almost any witness, you can find memory creep in their
testimony over time. There are plenty of examples.
Chris's problem is that his thinking is so rigid that he believes
it only happens to WC-friendly witnesses, and that whatever someone
said to the ARRB must be what they always said before and after.
The memory creep (my term for it,BTW) is an important factor to
consider, but it rarely is. And you need to separate those with
"creepy" memories from the outright bullshit artists.
Carrico really does seem to have moved the wound forwards, even
if it's not very far. Most likely from the influence of seeing
the autopsy materials for NOVA in '88. What I thought of as
important in the CSPAN interview is not his description of the
wounds, but his description of what was done, when, why, and in
what sequence during the futile attempts to treat JFK.
You are making a good point about witnesses *in general.*
But with the head wound witnesses, I think something different is
going on.
Buffs look at early verbal descriptions, and interpret them the way
they *want* to. But the descriptions are not very precise.
For example, "occipital area." It does not necessarily mean occipital
bone.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/occipital.htm
And buffs seem to be quite selective in what part of witness testimony
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg2.txt
<Quote on>---------------------------------------
. . . was a much larger wound than the neck wound. It was five by
seven centimeters, something like that, 2 1/2 by 3 inches, ragged, had
blood and hair all around it, located in the part of the parietal
occipital region.
Could you just state in layman's terms the approximate place that
would be?
That would be above and posterior to the ear, almost from the crown of
the head, and there was brain tissue showing through.
<Quote off>-----------------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/carrico_skull.GIF
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
The problem in this case is that the wound that was in the BOH leaving
Parkland hospital, was much expanded after Humes and Boswell got at the
head at Bethesda. They intentionally expanded the BOH wound which was the
size of a baseball, and made it go around the right side of the head, and
a bit of the top. That expansion shows in the descriptions of the wound
before and after leaving Parkland.
Another fine example of you convincing yourself something happened because it had to have happened for your theories to be valid.
Post by mainframetech
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
In the case of the BOH wound BEFORE Bethesda, the list of Over 39
witnesses all agree that the wound was confined to the Occipital-parietal
area at the BOH. A reasonable amount of corroboration.
Occipital-parietal is perfectly consistent with the AR description of the
defect although the report stated it also extend into the temporal region.
That would be the skull flap we see opened up in several of the leaked
photos including the stare-of-death and BOH photos. That temporal flap is
apparent in the Z-film about a millisecond after the bullet blew open the
upper right side of JFK's head. Just what we see in the film and just what
Zapruder described in a live TV interview before he even saw his film.
The wound didn't extend to the temporal area before the body left
Parkland. Too many witnesses and drawings prove it. Later it did because
it was extended by Hume and Boswell. The flap therefore was present when
the AR was written. But it was created by Humes, not a bullet. Humes put
it there so that it would fool the suckers that would think it was a
bullet from above and behind.
The flap was present in the Z-film. How did Humes and Boswell know to
alter the wound to match what was in the Z-film? How did they know to
alter the wound to match what Zapruder and Bill Newman described?
And how did they know that other undiscovered and unviewed films wouldn't
expose the alterations?
The answer rests on the statements of the over 39 witnesses to the
'large hole' in the BOH of JFK. And many of those 39 were medically
trained and had looked down at the wound from only 2 feet away. How 5 or
6 people saw a flap appear where there wasn't one is anybody's guess, but
it wasn't what was really there on the head while in the motorcade. The
flap was created by Humes and Boswell BEFORE the autopsy, so it might have
been duplicated in the alteration to the Z-film later, and the match
happened in reverse of what was thought.
Nurse Diana Bowron was the last person to see the body and the head
wound before the body was put in the Bronze casket and left Parkland
hospital. She cleaned up the hair and body. She was clear that the only
major wound she saw was the 'large hole' in the BOH, and NOT on the side.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
As Josiah Thompson pointed out: "[T]he critical problem for anyone
thinking of altering the Zapruder film is not the Muchmore and Nix films.
It is all the other films you don't know about - films developed outside
Dallas by people from out-of-state who just happened by...or by foreign
tourists who would get their films developed in their home countries. Any
one of these unknown films could expose your alteration."
Strange they didn't then.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
The same principle applies to altering the wounds as well as the Z film.
How would the alterationists (of the film of the wounds, et cetera) know -
or be confident in - that other films or evidence wouldn't expose their
acts?
Of course, we know the answer: they can do anything. They'd just alter
those films and cover up that other evidence.
We are trying to reason with, well, sorry for the word but so be it,
fanatics.
and you think there are no "fanatics" in the LN bunch? I have news
for you. They are so wedded to their WCR that no matter what evidence is
shown to them, they ignore it and later can't even remember they saw it.
They see only the story told in the WCR, theories and all.
Chris
They can't even see a bullet hole that everyone else can. They are a
dwindling minority desperately grasping at straws and like Trump keep
shouting, "No Conspiracy, no conspiracy."
Your new conspiracy colleague says that JFK's body was switched on Air
Mine? I don't have any alterationist colleagues. Learn English.
I am the one who attacks alterationists.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Force One into a different casket and that his wounds were altered. And
the Z film was faked.
Do you find him credible? Or not?
Who? Obviously since I was the person who PROVED that the Zapruder film
is authentic I have nothing but contempt for alterationists.
Mitch Todd
2018-03-24 20:12:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Excellent find, Mitch. I don't have time to watch the whole thing right
now but I got through the first 18 minutes and it was quite informative.
Most significant so far is at the 16:45 mark where Dr. Carrico describes
the head wound and uses his hand to show the location and extent of the
wound and it fits perfectly with the autopsy report description of the
large defect on the upper right side of JFK's head. With his fingers he
demonstrated a large wound about the size of a grapefruit and he place his
hand above his right ear.
Exactly what we see in the Z-film and exactly
what was described in the autopsy report. I look forward to the excuse
Chris comes up with to dismiss this account by Dr. Carrico which is
completely incompatible with his claim the body was altered at Bethesda to
extend the wound in the upper right side of the head. It was already there
per Dr. Carrico. Will Chris now claim that Carrico was pressured to lie,
his memory was faulty, or he was just incompetent. I can't remember if Dr.
Carrico was one of Chris's 39 witnesses to a large hole in the back of
JFK's head. If he is, he might want to drop him off the list. Carrico
doesn't help his cause.
I believe many doctors saw the Autopsy Report (AR) and superposed that
memory over their own real memory.
I knew you would invent an excuse but I thought you could do better than
that.
This is going to surprise a lot of people, but I kinda agree with
Chris on this. And it goes further than just the Parkland doctors.
People's memories are influenced by things they see and hear long
after the remembered event. Bonnie Ray Williams initially said
he heard two shots; a few days later, he remembered hearing three.
When asked, he said that he went home to think about it, and the
more he thought about it, the better his memory got ;-). Or, look
at Jackie's testimony as to how she decided she heard three shots;
it involves her reading a magazine. Or, compare the drawing James
Sibert made of the head wounds for the HSCA vs the one that he
made for the ARRB. Or, Connally talking to Agronsky vs what he said
later. With almost any witness, you can find memory creep in their
testimony over time. There are plenty of examples.
Chris's problem is that his thinking is so rigid that he believes
it only happens to WC-friendly witnesses, and that whatever someone
said to the ARRB must be what they always said before and after.
The memory creep (my term for it,BTW) is an important factor to
consider, but it rarely is. And you need to separate those with
"creepy" memories from the outright bullshit artists.
Carrico really does seem to have moved the wound forwards, even
if it's not very far. Most likely from the influence of seeing
the autopsy materials for NOVA in '88. What I thought of as
important in the CSPAN interview is not his description of the
wounds, but his description of what was done, when, why, and in
what sequence during the futile attempts to treat JFK.
You are making a good point about witnesses *in general.*
But with the head wound witnesses, I think something different is
going on.
Buffs look at early verbal descriptions, and interpret them the way
they *want* to. But the descriptions are not very precise.
For example, "occipital area." It does not necessarily mean occipital
bone.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/occipital.htm
And buffs seem to be quite selective in what part of witness testimony
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg2.txt
<Quote on>---------------------------------------
. . . was a much larger wound than the neck wound. It was five by
seven centimeters, something like that, 2 1/2 by 3 inches, ragged, had
blood and hair all around it, located in the part of the parietal
occipital region.
Could you just state in layman's terms the approximate place that
would be?
That would be above and posterior to the ear, almost from the crown of
the head, and there was brain tissue showing through.
<Quote off>-----------------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/carrico_skull.GIF
I'd forgotten about the Globe drawing. Thanks for reminding
me. It still seems a bit different than Carrico's original
description of the wound being in the "parietal occipital,"
although "parietal" essentially refers to the top of the head
and "occipital" refers to the rear, so "parietal occipital"
means "upper rear." The Globe drawing seems to put the wound
a bit forward of that description, though not by that much
and very close to what he showed on camera to KRON/NOVA in
the 80's. Still, his location does appear to have moved a
bit, and Carrico's memory is as prone to drift as anyone
else's. That's always something to consider with witness
testimony, especially as events fall further and further
into the past. One thing that's held me into JFK research is
my fascination with the way that witness testimony changes
over time. It's why I cringe when I hear someone state
something definitive about the assassination based on one
account said 35 years after the fact. To pick on Chris a bit,
the way he seems to thing that the ARRB testimony solves
anything, which I find somewhat whimsically charming, but a
simpleminded and wrong approach to such a rich and deep data
set. But he's not the only one, by far. Sometimes, you still
have to pick one account and go with it, because often that's
all you have. Still, memory drift is always a good thing to
mind in this business. And that's before you run into the
outright bullshitters.
mainframetech
2018-03-25 19:10:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John McAdams
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Excellent find, Mitch. I don't have time to watch the whole thing right
now but I got through the first 18 minutes and it was quite informative.
Most significant so far is at the 16:45 mark where Dr. Carrico describes
the head wound and uses his hand to show the location and extent of the
wound and it fits perfectly with the autopsy report description of the
large defect on the upper right side of JFK's head. With his fingers he
demonstrated a large wound about the size of a grapefruit and he place his
hand above his right ear.
Exactly what we see in the Z-film and exactly
what was described in the autopsy report. I look forward to the excuse
Chris comes up with to dismiss this account by Dr. Carrico which is
completely incompatible with his claim the body was altered at Bethesda to
extend the wound in the upper right side of the head. It was already there
per Dr. Carrico. Will Chris now claim that Carrico was pressured to lie,
his memory was faulty, or he was just incompetent. I can't remember if Dr.
Carrico was one of Chris's 39 witnesses to a large hole in the back of
JFK's head. If he is, he might want to drop him off the list. Carrico
doesn't help his cause.
I believe many doctors saw the Autopsy Report (AR) and superposed that
memory over their own real memory.
I knew you would invent an excuse but I thought you could do better than
that.
This is going to surprise a lot of people, but I kinda agree with
Chris on this. And it goes further than just the Parkland doctors.
People's memories are influenced by things they see and hear long
after the remembered event. Bonnie Ray Williams initially said
he heard two shots; a few days later, he remembered hearing three.
When asked, he said that he went home to think about it, and the
more he thought about it, the better his memory got ;-). Or, look
at Jackie's testimony as to how she decided she heard three shots;
it involves her reading a magazine. Or, compare the drawing James
Sibert made of the head wounds for the HSCA vs the one that he
made for the ARRB. Or, Connally talking to Agronsky vs what he said
later. With almost any witness, you can find memory creep in their
testimony over time. There are plenty of examples.
Chris's problem is that his thinking is so rigid that he believes
it only happens to WC-friendly witnesses, and that whatever someone
said to the ARRB must be what they always said before and after.
The memory creep (my term for it,BTW) is an important factor to
consider, but it rarely is. And you need to separate those with
"creepy" memories from the outright bullshit artists.
Carrico really does seem to have moved the wound forwards, even
if it's not very far. Most likely from the influence of seeing
the autopsy materials for NOVA in '88. What I thought of as
important in the CSPAN interview is not his description of the
wounds, but his description of what was done, when, why, and in
what sequence during the futile attempts to treat JFK.
You are making a good point about witnesses *in general.*
But with the head wound witnesses, I think something different is
going on.
Buffs look at early verbal descriptions, and interpret them the way
they *want* to. But the descriptions are not very precise.
For example, "occipital area." It does not necessarily mean occipital
bone.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/occipital.htm
And buffs seem to be quite selective in what part of witness testimony
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg2.txt
<Quote on>---------------------------------------
. . . was a much larger wound than the neck wound. It was five by
seven centimeters, something like that, 2 1/2 by 3 inches, ragged, had
blood and hair all around it, located in the part of the parietal
occipital region.
Could you just state in layman's terms the approximate place that
would be?
That would be above and posterior to the ear, almost from the crown of
the head, and there was brain tissue showing through.
<Quote off>-----------------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/carrico_skull.GIF
I'd forgotten about the Globe drawing. Thanks for reminding
me. It still seems a bit different than Carrico's original
description of the wound being in the "parietal occipital,"
although "parietal" essentially refers to the top of the head
and "occipital" refers to the rear, so "parietal occipital"
means "upper rear." The Globe drawing seems to put the wound
a bit forward of that description, though not by that much
and very close to what he showed on camera to KRON/NOVA in
the 80's. Still, his location does appear to have moved a
bit, and Carrico's memory is as prone to drift as anyone
else's. That's always something to consider with witness
testimony, especially as events fall further and further
into the past. One thing that's held me into JFK research is
my fascination with the way that witness testimony changes
over time. It's why I cringe when I hear someone state
something definitive about the assassination based on one
account said 35 years after the fact. To pick on Chris a bit,
the way he seems to thing that the ARRB testimony solves
anything, which I find somewhat whimsically charming, but a
simpleminded and wrong approach to such a rich and deep data
set.
That's a nice passage, but it ignores the fact that many of the things
I've told you came from MULTIPLE witnesses, not from a single source.
You want that to be false, but I can give the witnesses for anything I've
said and almost all of it is corroborated by another.
Post by Mitch Todd
But he's not the only one, by far. Sometimes, you still
have to pick one account and go with it, because often that's
all you have. Still, memory drift is always a good thing to
mind in this business. And that's before you run into the
outright bullshitters.
I'm glad you didn't put me into that category. But you need a category
for those that ignore clear evidence that is corroborated. And there is
only one account that is backed up by evidence. See if you can find it.

Chris
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-03-31 02:50:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John McAdams
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Excellent find, Mitch. I don't have time to watch the whole thing right
now but I got through the first 18 minutes and it was quite informative.
Most significant so far is at the 16:45 mark where Dr. Carrico describes
the head wound and uses his hand to show the location and extent of the
wound and it fits perfectly with the autopsy report description of the
large defect on the upper right side of JFK's head. With his fingers he
demonstrated a large wound about the size of a grapefruit and he place his
hand above his right ear.
Exactly what we see in the Z-film and exactly
what was described in the autopsy report. I look forward to the excuse
Chris comes up with to dismiss this account by Dr. Carrico which is
completely incompatible with his claim the body was altered at Bethesda to
extend the wound in the upper right side of the head. It was already there
per Dr. Carrico. Will Chris now claim that Carrico was pressured to lie,
his memory was faulty, or he was just incompetent. I can't remember if Dr.
Carrico was one of Chris's 39 witnesses to a large hole in the back of
JFK's head. If he is, he might want to drop him off the list. Carrico
doesn't help his cause.
I believe many doctors saw the Autopsy Report (AR) and superposed that
memory over their own real memory.
I knew you would invent an excuse but I thought you could do better than
that.
This is going to surprise a lot of people, but I kinda agree with
Chris on this. And it goes further than just the Parkland doctors.
People's memories are influenced by things they see and hear long
after the remembered event. Bonnie Ray Williams initially said
he heard two shots; a few days later, he remembered hearing three.
When asked, he said that he went home to think about it, and the
more he thought about it, the better his memory got ;-). Or, look
at Jackie's testimony as to how she decided she heard three shots;
it involves her reading a magazine. Or, compare the drawing James
Sibert made of the head wounds for the HSCA vs the one that he
made for the ARRB. Or, Connally talking to Agronsky vs what he said
later. With almost any witness, you can find memory creep in their
testimony over time. There are plenty of examples.
Chris's problem is that his thinking is so rigid that he believes
it only happens to WC-friendly witnesses, and that whatever someone
said to the ARRB must be what they always said before and after.
The memory creep (my term for it,BTW) is an important factor to
consider, but it rarely is. And you need to separate those with
"creepy" memories from the outright bullshit artists.
Carrico really does seem to have moved the wound forwards, even
if it's not very far. Most likely from the influence of seeing
the autopsy materials for NOVA in '88. What I thought of as
important in the CSPAN interview is not his description of the
wounds, but his description of what was done, when, why, and in
what sequence during the futile attempts to treat JFK.
You are making a good point about witnesses *in general.*
But with the head wound witnesses, I think something different is
going on.
Buffs look at early verbal descriptions, and interpret them the way
they *want* to. But the descriptions are not very precise.
For example, "occipital area." It does not necessarily mean occipital
bone.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/occipital.htm
And buffs seem to be quite selective in what part of witness testimony
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg2.txt
<Quote on>---------------------------------------
. . . was a much larger wound than the neck wound. It was five by
seven centimeters, something like that, 2 1/2 by 3 inches, ragged, had
blood and hair all around it, located in the part of the parietal
occipital region.
Could you just state in layman's terms the approximate place that
would be?
That would be above and posterior to the ear, almost from the crown of
the head, and there was brain tissue showing through.
<Quote off>-----------------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/carrico_skull.GIF
I'd forgotten about the Globe drawing. Thanks for reminding
me. It still seems a bit different than Carrico's original
description of the wound being in the "parietal occipital,"
although "parietal" essentially refers to the top of the head
and "occipital" refers to the rear, so "parietal occipital"
means "upper rear." The Globe drawing seems to put the wound
a bit forward of that description, though not by that much
and very close to what he showed on camera to KRON/NOVA in
the 80's. Still, his location does appear to have moved a
bit, and Carrico's memory is as prone to drift as anyone
else's. That's always something to consider with witness
testimony, especially as events fall further and further
into the past. One thing that's held me into JFK research is
my fascination with the way that witness testimony changes
over time. It's why I cringe when I hear someone state
something definitive about the assassination based on one
account said 35 years after the fact. To pick on Chris a bit,
the way he seems to thing that the ARRB testimony solves
anything, which I find somewhat whimsically charming, but a
simpleminded and wrong approach to such a rich and deep data
set. But he's not the only one, by far. Sometimes, you still
have to pick one account and go with it, because often that's
all you have. Still, memory drift is always a good thing to
mind in this business. And that's before you run into the
outright bullshitters.
Good posts/points.

And these are, obviously, not just ordinary 30+ year old memories, of some
routine/minor event. I'll guess that many of these witnesses read
conspiracy books about the event; followed it pretty closely. It's hard to
imagine them not being influenced - consciously or not - by what they read
and heard.

As O'Connor admitted: "[I]t has been so many years and so much has
happened, I kind of doubt my own ability to remember fine details."
mainframetech
2018-03-31 23:04:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John McAdams
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Excellent find, Mitch. I don't have time to watch the whole thing right
now but I got through the first 18 minutes and it was quite informative.
Most significant so far is at the 16:45 mark where Dr. Carrico describes
the head wound and uses his hand to show the location and extent of the
wound and it fits perfectly with the autopsy report description of the
large defect on the upper right side of JFK's head. With his fingers he
demonstrated a large wound about the size of a grapefruit and he place his
hand above his right ear.
Exactly what we see in the Z-film and exactly
what was described in the autopsy report. I look forward to the excuse
Chris comes up with to dismiss this account by Dr. Carrico which is
completely incompatible with his claim the body was altered at Bethesda to
extend the wound in the upper right side of the head. It was already there
per Dr. Carrico. Will Chris now claim that Carrico was pressured to lie,
his memory was faulty, or he was just incompetent. I can't remember if Dr.
Carrico was one of Chris's 39 witnesses to a large hole in the back of
JFK's head. If he is, he might want to drop him off the list. Carrico
doesn't help his cause.
I believe many doctors saw the Autopsy Report (AR) and superposed that
memory over their own real memory.
I knew you would invent an excuse but I thought you could do better than
that.
This is going to surprise a lot of people, but I kinda agree with
Chris on this. And it goes further than just the Parkland doctors.
People's memories are influenced by things they see and hear long
after the remembered event. Bonnie Ray Williams initially said
he heard two shots; a few days later, he remembered hearing three.
When asked, he said that he went home to think about it, and the
more he thought about it, the better his memory got ;-). Or, look
at Jackie's testimony as to how she decided she heard three shots;
it involves her reading a magazine. Or, compare the drawing James
Sibert made of the head wounds for the HSCA vs the one that he
made for the ARRB. Or, Connally talking to Agronsky vs what he said
later. With almost any witness, you can find memory creep in their
testimony over time. There are plenty of examples.
Chris's problem is that his thinking is so rigid that he believes
it only happens to WC-friendly witnesses, and that whatever someone
said to the ARRB must be what they always said before and after.
The memory creep (my term for it,BTW) is an important factor to
consider, but it rarely is. And you need to separate those with
"creepy" memories from the outright bullshit artists.
Carrico really does seem to have moved the wound forwards, even
if it's not very far. Most likely from the influence of seeing
the autopsy materials for NOVA in '88. What I thought of as
important in the CSPAN interview is not his description of the
wounds, but his description of what was done, when, why, and in
what sequence during the futile attempts to treat JFK.
You are making a good point about witnesses *in general.*
But with the head wound witnesses, I think something different is
going on.
Buffs look at early verbal descriptions, and interpret them the way
they *want* to. But the descriptions are not very precise.
For example, "occipital area." It does not necessarily mean occipital
bone.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/occipital.htm
And buffs seem to be quite selective in what part of witness testimony
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg2.txt
<Quote on>---------------------------------------
. . . was a much larger wound than the neck wound. It was five by
seven centimeters, something like that, 2 1/2 by 3 inches, ragged, had
blood and hair all around it, located in the part of the parietal
occipital region.
Could you just state in layman's terms the approximate place that
would be?
That would be above and posterior to the ear, almost from the crown of
the head, and there was brain tissue showing through.
<Quote off>-----------------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/carrico_skull.GIF
I'd forgotten about the Globe drawing. Thanks for reminding
me. It still seems a bit different than Carrico's original
description of the wound being in the "parietal occipital,"
although "parietal" essentially refers to the top of the head
and "occipital" refers to the rear, so "parietal occipital"
means "upper rear." The Globe drawing seems to put the wound
a bit forward of that description, though not by that much
and very close to what he showed on camera to KRON/NOVA in
the 80's. Still, his location does appear to have moved a
bit, and Carrico's memory is as prone to drift as anyone
else's. That's always something to consider with witness
testimony, especially as events fall further and further
into the past. One thing that's held me into JFK research is
my fascination with the way that witness testimony changes
over time. It's why I cringe when I hear someone state
something definitive about the assassination based on one
account said 35 years after the fact. To pick on Chris a bit,
the way he seems to thing that the ARRB testimony solves
anything, which I find somewhat whimsically charming, but a
simpleminded and wrong approach to such a rich and deep data
set. But he's not the only one, by far. Sometimes, you still
have to pick one account and go with it, because often that's
all you have. Still, memory drift is always a good thing to
mind in this business. And that's before you run into the
outright bullshitters.
Good posts/points.
And these are, obviously, not just ordinary 30+ year old memories, of some
routine/minor event. I'll guess that many of these witnesses read
conspiracy books about the event; followed it pretty closely. It's hard to
imagine them not being influenced - consciously or not - by what they read
and heard.
As O'Connor admitted: "[I]t has been so many years and so much has
happened, I kind of doubt my own ability to remember fine details."
And you think that's a basis for dismissing the evidence of the
memories of the many that have testified? Even thought they often
corroborate each other? This was the murder of a president, and it stuck
in many minds. Where the "fine details" might be lost, the general
details will be present. And some people remember the fine details as
well. For instance, Tom Robinson, the mortician remembers the quarter
inch in diameter hole in the forehead/temple area which was an entry wound
for a bullet. He also remembers the exit wound at the BOH which was blown
out when the bullet built up pressure in the head.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-31 23:22:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by John McAdams
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Excellent find, Mitch. I don't have time to watch the whole thing right
now but I got through the first 18 minutes and it was quite informative.
Most significant so far is at the 16:45 mark where Dr. Carrico describes
the head wound and uses his hand to show the location and extent of the
wound and it fits perfectly with the autopsy report description of the
large defect on the upper right side of JFK's head. With his fingers he
demonstrated a large wound about the size of a grapefruit and he place his
hand above his right ear.
Exactly what we see in the Z-film and exactly
what was described in the autopsy report. I look forward to the excuse
Chris comes up with to dismiss this account by Dr. Carrico which is
completely incompatible with his claim the body was altered at Bethesda to
extend the wound in the upper right side of the head. It was already there
per Dr. Carrico. Will Chris now claim that Carrico was pressured to lie,
his memory was faulty, or he was just incompetent. I can't remember if Dr.
Carrico was one of Chris's 39 witnesses to a large hole in the back of
JFK's head. If he is, he might want to drop him off the list. Carrico
doesn't help his cause.
I believe many doctors saw the Autopsy Report (AR) and superposed that
memory over their own real memory.
I knew you would invent an excuse but I thought you could do better than
that.
This is going to surprise a lot of people, but I kinda agree with
Chris on this. And it goes further than just the Parkland doctors.
People's memories are influenced by things they see and hear long
after the remembered event. Bonnie Ray Williams initially said
he heard two shots; a few days later, he remembered hearing three.
When asked, he said that he went home to think about it, and the
more he thought about it, the better his memory got ;-). Or, look
at Jackie's testimony as to how she decided she heard three shots;
it involves her reading a magazine. Or, compare the drawing James
Sibert made of the head wounds for the HSCA vs the one that he
made for the ARRB. Or, Connally talking to Agronsky vs what he said
later. With almost any witness, you can find memory creep in their
testimony over time. There are plenty of examples.
Chris's problem is that his thinking is so rigid that he believes
it only happens to WC-friendly witnesses, and that whatever someone
said to the ARRB must be what they always said before and after.
The memory creep (my term for it,BTW) is an important factor to
consider, but it rarely is. And you need to separate those with
"creepy" memories from the outright bullshit artists.
Carrico really does seem to have moved the wound forwards, even
if it's not very far. Most likely from the influence of seeing
the autopsy materials for NOVA in '88. What I thought of as
important in the CSPAN interview is not his description of the
wounds, but his description of what was done, when, why, and in
what sequence during the futile attempts to treat JFK.
You are making a good point about witnesses *in general.*
But with the head wound witnesses, I think something different is
going on.
Buffs look at early verbal descriptions, and interpret them the way
they *want* to. But the descriptions are not very precise.
For example, "occipital area." It does not necessarily mean occipital
bone.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/occipital.htm
And buffs seem to be quite selective in what part of witness testimony
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aguilar/agg2.txt
<Quote on>---------------------------------------
. . . was a much larger wound than the neck wound. It was five by
seven centimeters, something like that, 2 1/2 by 3 inches, ragged, had
blood and hair all around it, located in the part of the parietal
occipital region.
Could you just state in layman's terms the approximate place that
would be?
That would be above and posterior to the ear, almost from the crown of
the head, and there was brain tissue showing through.
<Quote off>-----------------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/carrico_skull.GIF
I'd forgotten about the Globe drawing. Thanks for reminding
me. It still seems a bit different than Carrico's original
description of the wound being in the "parietal occipital,"
although "parietal" essentially refers to the top of the head
and "occipital" refers to the rear, so "parietal occipital"
means "upper rear." The Globe drawing seems to put the wound
a bit forward of that description, though not by that much
and very close to what he showed on camera to KRON/NOVA in
the 80's. Still, his location does appear to have moved a
bit, and Carrico's memory is as prone to drift as anyone
else's. That's always something to consider with witness
testimony, especially as events fall further and further
into the past. One thing that's held me into JFK research is
my fascination with the way that witness testimony changes
over time. It's why I cringe when I hear someone state
something definitive about the assassination based on one
account said 35 years after the fact. To pick on Chris a bit,
the way he seems to thing that the ARRB testimony solves
anything, which I find somewhat whimsically charming, but a
simpleminded and wrong approach to such a rich and deep data
set. But he's not the only one, by far. Sometimes, you still
have to pick one account and go with it, because often that's
all you have. Still, memory drift is always a good thing to
mind in this business. And that's before you run into the
outright bullshitters.
Good posts/points.
And these are, obviously, not just ordinary 30+ year old memories, of some
routine/minor event. I'll guess that many of these witnesses read
conspiracy books about the event; followed it pretty closely. It's hard to
imagine them not being influenced - consciously or not - by what they read
and heard.
This is the whole point of a cover-up.

If these things had come out that day we could have checked them out. But
if they only come out 30 years later you can dismiss them. Thank you for
playing the game and we have some lovely parting gifts for you.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
As O'Connor admitted: "[I]t has been so many years and so much has
happened, I kind of doubt my own ability to remember fine details."
mainframetech
2018-03-23 04:25:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Excellent find, Mitch. I don't have time to watch the whole thing right
now but I got through the first 18 minutes and it was quite informative.
Most significant so far is at the 16:45 mark where Dr. Carrico describes
the head wound and uses his hand to show the location and extent of the
wound and it fits perfectly with the autopsy report description of the
large defect on the upper right side of JFK's head. With his fingers he
demonstrated a large wound about the size of a grapefruit and he place his
hand above his right ear.
Exactly what we see in the Z-film and exactly
what was described in the autopsy report. I look forward to the excuse
Chris comes up with to dismiss this account by Dr. Carrico which is
completely incompatible with his claim the body was altered at Bethesda to
extend the wound in the upper right side of the head. It was already there
per Dr. Carrico. Will Chris now claim that Carrico was pressured to lie,
his memory was faulty, or he was just incompetent. I can't remember if Dr.
Carrico was one of Chris's 39 witnesses to a large hole in the back of
JFK's head. If he is, he might want to drop him off the list. Carrico
doesn't help his cause.
I believe many doctors saw the Autopsy Report (AR) and superposed that
memory over their own real memory.
I knew you would invent an excuse but I thought you could do better than
that.
Don't you ever tire of having to jump through all these hoops.
Don't you ever tire of making up phony complaints about facts that you
can't argue with?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I'm sure that sounds far out to most LNs,
One of your more astute observations.
Post by mainframetech
but There is a way to show what Dr. Carrico thought about the wound
location long before that interview, which will prove my point. Here's a
montage of doctors that were pointing out the location of the BOH wound.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_To8yaQCW4M/UollTaN-8qI/AAAAAAAAw5c/RiqwJovCKkg/s530/198.+%27BOH%27+Wound+Witnesses+(Montage).jpg
Pretty much what he showed in the interview. The upper right side of the
head.
WRONG again! What a terrible record of errors you've built! Now if an
average person looked at that photo of Carrico, they'd see that he is
covering the upper back of the head with his right hand. NOT the "right
side". Here's an example drawing of where the wound was seen by Tom
Robinson the mortician, who got the closest look at the wound than anyone
else:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
As is often the case, the evidence closer to the event is the one that
best shows the beliefs and knowledge of the witness, and I believe the
montage is way before the 1997 date of the Carrico video that got poor bd
so excited.
Even closer to the event is his WC testimony. I've already posted the
pertinent passage in this thread. He places the large defect in the
"occipitoparietal area" which encompasses both the rear and upper right
side of the skull and fits with the AR description which state "There is a
large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving
chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and
occipital regions.".
bd finally got clever and used the AR description, but the head wound
had been modified by that time and was NOT what it was when leaving
Parkland hospital where Carrico worked in the ER. In the AR it actually
is right in saying that there was a larger wound from the BOH to the right
side of the head. But when in Parkland where Carrico saw the head wound,
the occipital-parfietal mweans the area bethween the 2parts of the skull,
NOT on th side of the head. Once again se the example drawn by the
mortician, Tom Robinson, who got closer than anyone to the head wound:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
Post by bigdog
More support for the conclusions of the prosectors
and you can't use the excuse Carrico didn't see the body to dismiss him.
His testimony pretty much shoots down your claim Humes and Boswell used a
bone saw to extend the wound in to parietal region since Carrico saw the
defect there well before the body reached Bethesda.
As usual you over look something, and add to your list of errors. The
parietal can describe the BOH as well as the sides. In the case of
Carrico, he was describing the BOH, as in the example drawn by Tom
Robinson above. Here are some more examples of the wound drawn by
witnesses who saw it up close:

Nurse Audrey Bell:
Loading Image...

Nurse Diana Bowron:
Loading Image...

James Sibert, FBI Agent:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719

Note that all the examples drawn by witnesses show a wound that
spanned both the occipital and the parietal zones, but is NOT on the side
of the head.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
In going through many witness statements I have seen where the doctors
particularly have said one thing earlier, and then much later they have
said something different. I believe it's from reading the phony AR.
I'm quite sure the WC would not have allowed any of the ER staff to see
the AR before they testified for just the reason you stated. They would
not want that report to influence their testimony. But of course you will
just imagine they got to see it even though you have no evidence that they
did.
There is also no evidence that they didn't hear the results of the
autopsy either, so don't claim anything on that score. There are OBVIOUS
differences in what witnesses saw BEFORE the body got to Bethesda, and
after it got there, here's the head wound as seen before and after getting
to Bethesda:

Before:
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

After:
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They incorporate the AR description of the wound, which was indeed larger
than the original wound, and was around the right side and a bit of the
top as well as the BOH. The original wound as the body left Parkland was
described by Nurse Diana Bowron as strictly at the BOH only.
Quote please.
No problem. Here's her WC testimony:

"Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir."

And her interview with Harold Livingstone:
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron

"HL: Because I have, I have reports from the morticians in Washington. So,
since you haven't read it-that's good. Because, what you're telling me is
not influenced by what I wrote already. But do you remember any
perforations in the head or did you see any holes or anything like a
bullet hole anywhere on his skull or in the back of the skull?

DB: At the back of the skull, an enormous hole.

HL: And would you-is that in the general area where that drawing- those
drawings-I'm sure you've seen them-where they've got a big piece of skull
missing in the very back of the head?

DB: Yes.

HL: Would you say that the hole's extended as far around as to be just
behind the right ear?

DB: Yes. It was more towards the right ear, definitely, then the left. But
it was, it was big. I mean, I could-and for when I did the thing, I had to
pack, you know, linens into there."


Note that the wound she describes was near to the right ear, and if you
put your right hand back behind your ear, you can feel the location she
was talking about. The hole in the BOH was close to th back part of the
right ear. Here's her drawing again of what she saw:

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg



An interesting side issue came up when I was digging up the interview
of Bowron by Harold Livingstone. Here it is:

HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron

"DB: No towel, because I washed his hair. This is what I was going to write
to you about all these autopsy photographs with all the blood clots and
everything on the back....
HL: Is there anything peculiar about those pictures?

DB: Very peculiar, very peculiar. (Very long pause as she awaits a
question.)

HL: Well, I think they're fake as hell.

DB: Definitely. Definitely. On those pages that you told me, there's three
together, top of the F 6 and F 7, and something that-all are fake
completely because I washed all the clots out of his hair before I wrapped
it up."

From: http://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/QbgORExR/nurse-diana-bowron

So she noticed the faked autopsy photos too. If they were the ones
shown to the medical panels, then that partly how they were fooled.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If you check the list of Over 39 witnesses, you'll see that many of
the doctors call the wound location occipital or occipital-parietal.
Occipital parietal fits perfectly with the AR placement of the defect.
Post by mainframetech
Occipital is low at the BOH.
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/courses-images/wp-content/uploads/sites/1940/2017/05/29212646/eueywvxjtjq8doz9v1b0.png
Here is a rear diagram of the occipitut and it rises to about the midway
point of the BOH.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Occipital_bone_lateral3.png
And here is the drawing of the BOH wound by Tom Robinson, mortician:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page

Chris
bigdog
2018-03-24 00:13:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Excellent find, Mitch. I don't have time to watch the whole thing right
now but I got through the first 18 minutes and it was quite informative.
Most significant so far is at the 16:45 mark where Dr. Carrico describes
the head wound and uses his hand to show the location and extent of the
wound and it fits perfectly with the autopsy report description of the
large defect on the upper right side of JFK's head. With his fingers he
demonstrated a large wound about the size of a grapefruit and he place his
hand above his right ear.
Exactly what we see in the Z-film and exactly
what was described in the autopsy report. I look forward to the excuse
Chris comes up with to dismiss this account by Dr. Carrico which is
completely incompatible with his claim the body was altered at Bethesda to
extend the wound in the upper right side of the head. It was already there
per Dr. Carrico. Will Chris now claim that Carrico was pressured to lie,
his memory was faulty, or he was just incompetent. I can't remember if Dr.
Carrico was one of Chris's 39 witnesses to a large hole in the back of
JFK's head. If he is, he might want to drop him off the list. Carrico
doesn't help his cause.
I believe many doctors saw the Autopsy Report (AR) and superposed that
memory over their own real memory.
I knew you would invent an excuse but I thought you could do better than
that.
Don't you ever tire of having to jump through all these hoops.
Don't you ever tire of making up phony complaints about facts that you
can't argue with?
Don't you tire of asking questions based on false pretenses.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I'm sure that sounds far out to most LNs,
One of your more astute observations.
Post by mainframetech
but There is a way to show what Dr. Carrico thought about the wound
location long before that interview, which will prove my point. Here's a
montage of doctors that were pointing out the location of the BOH wound.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_To8yaQCW4M/UollTaN-8qI/AAAAAAAAw5c/RiqwJovCKkg/s530/198.+%27BOH%27+Wound+Witnesses+(Montage).jpg
Pretty much what he showed in the interview. The upper right side of the
head.
WRONG again! What a terrible record of errors you've built! Now if an
average person looked at that photo of Carrico, they'd see that he is
covering the upper back of the head with his right hand. NOT the "right
side". Here's an example drawing of where the wound was seen by Tom
Robinson the mortician, who got the closest look at the wound than anyone
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
Back to pretending drawings are empirical evidence. You've showed us lots
of drawings of the BOH wound and they are all different sizes in different
locations. So much for the value of these drawings.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
As is often the case, the evidence closer to the event is the one that
best shows the beliefs and knowledge of the witness, and I believe the
montage is way before the 1997 date of the Carrico video that got poor bd
so excited.
Even closer to the event is his WC testimony. I've already posted the
pertinent passage in this thread. He places the large defect in the
"occipitoparietal area" which encompasses both the rear and upper right
side of the skull and fits with the AR description which state "There is a
large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving
chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and
occipital regions.".
bd finally got clever and used the AR description, but the head wound
had been modified by that time and was NOT what it was when leaving
Parkland hospital where Carrico worked in the ER. In the AR it actually
is right in saying that there was a larger wound from the BOH to the right
side of the head. But when in Parkland where Carrico saw the head wound,
the occipital-parfietal mweans the area bethween the 2parts of the skull,
NOT on th side of the head. Once again se the example drawn by the
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
Robinson placed the wound entirely within the occipital region and not
even adjacent to the parietal bone. Obviously both he and Carrico cannot
be correct.

Occipital-parietal means the wound encompassed both the parietal and
occipital regions, just as the AR described. The AR also pointed out it
extended into the temporal region.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
More support for the conclusions of the prosectors
and you can't use the excuse Carrico didn't see the body to dismiss him.
His testimony pretty much shoots down your claim Humes and Boswell used a
bone saw to extend the wound in to parietal region since Carrico saw the
defect there well before the body reached Bethesda.
As usual you over look something, and add to your list of errors. The
parietal can describe the BOH as well as the sides. In the case of
Carrico, he was describing the BOH, as in the example drawn by Tom
Robinson above. Here are some more examples of the wound drawn by
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
Note that all the examples drawn by witnesses show a wound that
spanned both the occipital and the parietal zones, but is NOT on the side
of the head.
So we have numerous witnesses placing the same wound in numerous
locations. So much for the reliability of these witnesses.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
In going through many witness statements I have seen where the doctors
particularly have said one thing earlier, and then much later they have
said something different. I believe it's from reading the phony AR.
I'm quite sure the WC would not have allowed any of the ER staff to see
the AR before they testified for just the reason you stated. They would
not want that report to influence their testimony. But of course you will
just imagine they got to see it even though you have no evidence that they
did.
There is also no evidence that they didn't hear the results of the
autopsy either, so don't claim anything on that score.
You are the one suggesting that these witnesses were influenced by the AR
so the burden is on you to provide the evidence to support that
contention. Once again you try to shift the burden of proof by challenging
me to disprove one of your baseless claims.
Post by mainframetech
There are OBVIOUS
differences in what witnesses saw BEFORE the body got to Bethesda, and
after it got there, here's the head wound as seen before and after getting
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
There wasn't one skull flap, there were several. This photo is the best
view we have of the full extent of the defect and the multiple flaps
created by the blow out.

Loading Image...
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They incorporate the AR description of the wound, which was indeed larger
than the original wound, and was around the right side and a bit of the
top as well as the BOH. The original wound as the body left Parkland was
described by Nurse Diana Bowron as strictly at the BOH only.
Quote please.
"Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir."
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"HL: Because I have, I have reports from the morticians in Washington. So,
since you haven't read it-that's good. Because, what you're telling me is
not influenced by what I wrote already. But do you remember any
perforations in the head or did you see any holes or anything like a
bullet hole anywhere on his skull or in the back of the skull?
DB: At the back of the skull, an enormous hole.
HL: And would you-is that in the general area where that drawing- those
drawings-I'm sure you've seen them-where they've got a big piece of skull
missing in the very back of the head?
DB: Yes.
HL: Would you say that the hole's extended as far around as to be just
behind the right ear?
DB: Yes. It was more towards the right ear, definitely, then the left. But
it was, it was big. I mean, I could-and for when I did the thing, I had to
pack, you know, linens into there."
Note that the wound she describes was near to the right ear, and if you
put your right hand back behind your ear, you can feel the location she
was talking about. The hole in the BOH was close to th back part of the
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
Since she was aware of only one flap, she wouldn't have been aware of the
true extent of the defect. It wasn't limited to the BOH although with the
forward flaps closed it would appear that way to her.
Post by mainframetech
An interesting side issue came up when I was digging up the interview
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"DB: No towel, because I washed his hair. This is what I was going to write
to you about all these autopsy photographs with all the blood clots and
everything on the back....
HL: Is there anything peculiar about those pictures?
DB: Very peculiar, very peculiar. (Very long pause as she awaits a
question.)
HL: Well, I think they're fake as hell.
DB: Definitely. Definitely. On those pages that you told me, there's three
together, top of the F 6 and F 7, and something that-all are fake
completely because I washed all the clots out of his hair before I wrapped
it up."
Nothing like leading the witness.
Post by mainframetech
From: http://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/QbgORExR/nurse-diana-bowron
So she noticed the faked autopsy photos too. If they were the ones
shown to the medical panels, then that partly how they were fooled.
They weren't faked. They differed from her memory. You've already
demonstrated how unreliable witness memory can be by showing drawings
which placed the same wound in multiple locations.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If you check the list of Over 39 witnesses, you'll see that many of
the doctors call the wound location occipital or occipital-parietal.
Occipital parietal fits perfectly with the AR placement of the defect.
Post by mainframetech
Occipital is low at the BOH.
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/courses-images/wp-content/uploads/sites/1940/2017/05/29212646/eueywvxjtjq8doz9v1b0.png
Here is a rear diagram of the occipitut and it rises to about the midway
point of the BOH.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Occipital_bone_lateral3.png
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
More drawings. I put more faith in photos. They aren't reliant on fallible
human memories.
mainframetech
2018-03-25 00:39:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Excellent find, Mitch. I don't have time to watch the whole thing right
now but I got through the first 18 minutes and it was quite informative.
Most significant so far is at the 16:45 mark where Dr. Carrico describes
the head wound and uses his hand to show the location and extent of the
wound and it fits perfectly with the autopsy report description of the
large defect on the upper right side of JFK's head. With his fingers he
demonstrated a large wound about the size of a grapefruit and he place his
hand above his right ear.
Exactly what we see in the Z-film and exactly
what was described in the autopsy report. I look forward to the excuse
Chris comes up with to dismiss this account by Dr. Carrico which is
completely incompatible with his claim the body was altered at Bethesda to
extend the wound in the upper right side of the head. It was already there
per Dr. Carrico. Will Chris now claim that Carrico was pressured to lie,
his memory was faulty, or he was just incompetent. I can't remember if Dr.
Carrico was one of Chris's 39 witnesses to a large hole in the back of
JFK's head. If he is, he might want to drop him off the list. Carrico
doesn't help his cause.
I believe many doctors saw the Autopsy Report (AR) and superposed that
memory over their own real memory.
I knew you would invent an excuse but I thought you could do better than
that.
Don't you ever tire of having to jump through all these hoops.
Don't you ever tire of making up phony complaints about facts that you
can't argue with?
Don't you tire of asking questions based on false pretenses.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I'm sure that sounds far out to most LNs,
One of your more astute observations.
Post by mainframetech
but There is a way to show what Dr. Carrico thought about the wound
location long before that interview, which will prove my point. Here's a
montage of doctors that were pointing out the location of the BOH wound.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_To8yaQCW4M/UollTaN-8qI/AAAAAAAAw5c/RiqwJovCKkg/s530/198.+%27BOH%27+Wound+Witnesses+(Montage).jpg
Pretty much what he showed in the interview. The upper right side of the
head.
WRONG again! What a terrible record of errors you've built! Now if an
average person looked at that photo of Carrico, they'd see that he is
covering the upper back of the head with his right hand. NOT the "right
side". Here's an example drawing of where the wound was seen by Tom
Robinson the mortician, who got the closest look at the wound than anyone
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
Back to pretending drawings are empirical evidence. You've showed us lots
of drawings of the BOH wound and they are all different sizes in different
locations. So much for the value of these drawings.
Don't let yourself make more mistakes. You who talk about the
differences in witness testimony suddenly get so nitpicking that a little
this way or that is a major problem. The drawings show where each
individual remembered the wound being located, and the size. For
remembering over a long period, they did very well and they pretty much
matched each other. It is evidence that there was a wound at the BOH, and
not around the side until after Bethesda.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
As is often the case, the evidence closer to the event is the one that
best shows the beliefs and knowledge of the witness, and I believe the
montage is way before the 1997 date of the Carrico video that got poor bd
so excited.
Even closer to the event is his WC testimony. I've already posted the
pertinent passage in this thread. He places the large defect in the
"occipitoparietal area" which encompasses both the rear and upper right
side of the skull and fits with the AR description which state "There is a
large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving
chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and
occipital regions.".
bd finally got clever and used the AR description, but the head wound
had been modified by that time and was NOT what it was when leaving
Parkland hospital where Carrico worked in the ER. In the AR it actually
is right in saying that there was a larger wound from the BOH to the right
side of the head. But when in Parkland where Carrico saw the head wound,
the occipital-parietal means the area between the 2 parts of the skull,
NOT on the side of the head. Once again see the example drawn by the
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
Robinson placed the wound entirely within the occipital region and not
even adjacent to the parietal bone. Obviously both he and Carrico cannot
be correct.
WRONG again. That comes from being too hasty and not considering
things. That's why I so often tell you to 'think it through'. Robinson
was using a form which had already laid out the location of the Occipital
bone, but it's a form, not exactly reality.
Post by bigdog
Occipital-parietal means the wound encompassed both the parietal and
occipital regions, just as the AR described. The AR also pointed out it
extended into the temporal region.
The temporal region is what was included when Humes and Boswell got at
the body. It had been strictly the BOH, but Temporal is the side, so the
expansion they did went around the side.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
More support for the conclusions of the prosectors
and you can't use the excuse Carrico didn't see the body to dismiss him.
His testimony pretty much shoots down your claim Humes and Boswell used a
bone saw to extend the wound in to parietal region since Carrico saw the
defect there well before the body reached Bethesda.
As usual you overlook something, and add to your list of errors. The
parietal can describe the BOH as well as the sides. In the case of
Carrico, he was describing the BOH, as in the example drawn by Tom
Robinson above. Here are some more examples of the wound drawn by
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
Note that all the examples drawn by witnesses show a wound that
spanned both the occipital and the parietal zones, but is NOT on the side
of the head.
So we have numerous witnesses placing the same wound in numerous
locations. So much for the reliability of these witnesses.
Pick, pick, pick. Folks can see for themselves.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
In going through many witness statements I have seen where the doctors
particularly have said one thing earlier, and then much later they have
said something different. I believe it's from reading the phony AR.
I'm quite sure the WC would not have allowed any of the ER staff to see
the AR before they testified for just the reason you stated. They would
not want that report to influence their testimony. But of course you will
just imagine they got to see it even though you have no evidence that they
did.
There is also no evidence that they didn't hear the results of the
autopsy either, so don't claim anything on that score.
You are the one suggesting that these witnesses were influenced by the AR
so the burden is on you to provide the evidence to support that
contention. Once again you try to shift the burden of proof by challenging
me to disprove one of your baseless claims.
The evidence is that the AR says what it says, which is proof. And
that leaves your claim that I was wrong, which you'll have to prove.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There are OBVIOUS
differences in what witnesses saw BEFORE the body got to Bethesda, and
after it got there, here's the head wound as seen before and after getting
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
There wasn't one skull flap, there were several. This photo is the best
view we have of the full extent of the defect and the multiple flaps
created by the blow out.
You have not only NO photo that shows more than one flap, you have no
other proof of multiple flaps, which is plain ridiculous. But you'll say
anything in desperation to prove your WCR is all OK.
Post by bigdog
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_RwmGaB6TA0s/TT6IOcuOXhI/AAAAAAAAMmY/meM48QFibyg/s400/colour+autopsy+photo+01.jpeg
Interesting photo from the 'leaked' photos of the autopsy. And of
course, it can't be depended on, because they put a piece of what looks
like gauze over the bullet wound so that it couldn't be seen. The
'stare-of-death' is the only photo that shows it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They incorporate the AR description of the wound, which was indeed larger
than the original wound, and was around the right side and a bit of the
top as well as the BOH. The original wound as the body left Parkland was
described by Nurse Diana Bowron as strictly at the BOH only.
Quote please.
"Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir."
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"HL: Because I have, I have reports from the morticians in Washington. So,
since you haven't read it-that's good. Because, what you're telling me is
not influenced by what I wrote already. But do you remember any
perforations in the head or did you see any holes or anything like a
bullet hole anywhere on his skull or in the back of the skull?
DB: At the back of the skull, an enormous hole.
HL: And would you-is that in the general area where that drawing- those
drawings-I'm sure you've seen them-where they've got a big piece of skull
missing in the very back of the head?
DB: Yes.
HL: Would you say that the hole's extended as far around as to be just
behind the right ear?
DB: Yes. It was more towards the right ear, definitely, then the left. But
it was, it was big. I mean, I could-and for when I did the thing, I had to
pack, you know, linens into there."
Note that the wound she describes was near to the right ear, and if you
put your right hand back behind your ear, you can feel the location she
was talking about. The hole in the BOH was close to the back part of the
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
Since she was aware of only one flap, she wouldn't have been aware of the
true extent of the defect. It wasn't limited to the BOH although with the
forward flaps closed it would appear that way to her.
There were no flaps when the body left Parkland. Nurse Bowron was the
also to see the body before it left. But this is all repetition, so I'm
outa here.

Chris
Amy Joyce
2018-03-27 02:29:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Excellent find, Mitch. I don't have time to watch the whole thing right
now but I got through the first 18 minutes and it was quite informative.
Most significant so far is at the 16:45 mark where Dr. Carrico describes
the head wound and uses his hand to show the location and extent of the
wound and it fits perfectly with the autopsy report description of the
large defect on the upper right side of JFK's head. With his fingers he
demonstrated a large wound about the size of a grapefruit and he place his
hand above his right ear.
Exactly what we see in the Z-film and exactly
what was described in the autopsy report. I look forward to the excuse
Chris comes up with to dismiss this account by Dr. Carrico which is
completely incompatible with his claim the body was altered at Bethesda to
extend the wound in the upper right side of the head. It was already there
per Dr. Carrico. Will Chris now claim that Carrico was pressured to lie,
his memory was faulty, or he was just incompetent. I can't remember if Dr.
Carrico was one of Chris's 39 witnesses to a large hole in the back of
JFK's head. If he is, he might want to drop him off the list. Carrico
doesn't help his cause.
I believe many doctors saw the Autopsy Report (AR) and superposed that
memory over their own real memory.
I knew you would invent an excuse but I thought you could do better than
that.
Don't you ever tire of having to jump through all these hoops.
Don't you ever tire of making up phony complaints about facts that you
can't argue with?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I'm sure that sounds far out to most LNs,
One of your more astute observations.
Post by mainframetech
but There is a way to show what Dr. Carrico thought about the wound
location long before that interview, which will prove my point. Here's a
montage of doctors that were pointing out the location of the BOH wound.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_To8yaQCW4M/UollTaN-8qI/AAAAAAAAw5c/RiqwJovCKkg/s530/198.+%27BOH%27+Wound+Witnesses+(Montage).jpg
Pretty much what he showed in the interview. The upper right side of the
head.
WRONG again! What a terrible record of errors you've built! Now if an
average person looked at that photo of Carrico, they'd see that he is
covering the upper back of the head with his right hand. NOT the "right
side". Here's an example drawing of where the wound was seen by Tom
Robinson the mortician, who got the closest look at the wound than anyone
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
As is often the case, the evidence closer to the event is the one that
best shows the beliefs and knowledge of the witness, and I believe the
montage is way before the 1997 date of the Carrico video that got poor bd
so excited.
Even closer to the event is his WC testimony. I've already posted the
pertinent passage in this thread. He places the large defect in the
"occipitoparietal area" which encompasses both the rear and upper right
side of the skull and fits with the AR description which state "There is a
large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving
chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and
occipital regions.".
bd finally got clever and used the AR description, but the head wound
had been modified by that time and was NOT what it was when leaving
Parkland hospital where Carrico worked in the ER. In the AR it actually
is right in saying that there was a larger wound from the BOH to the right
side of the head. But when in Parkland where Carrico saw the head wound,
the occipital-parfietal mweans the area bethween the 2parts of the skull,
NOT on th side of the head. Once again se the example drawn by the
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
Post by bigdog
More support for the conclusions of the prosectors
and you can't use the excuse Carrico didn't see the body to dismiss him.
His testimony pretty much shoots down your claim Humes and Boswell used a
bone saw to extend the wound in to parietal region since Carrico saw the
defect there well before the body reached Bethesda.
As usual you over look something, and add to your list of errors. The
parietal can describe the BOH as well as the sides. In the case of
Carrico, he was describing the BOH, as in the example drawn by Tom
Robinson above. Here are some more examples of the wound drawn by
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
Note that all the examples drawn by witnesses show a wound that
spanned both the occipital and the parietal zones, but is NOT on the side
of the head.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
In going through many witness statements I have seen where the doctors
particularly have said one thing earlier, and then much later they have
said something different. I believe it's from reading the phony AR.
I'm quite sure the WC would not have allowed any of the ER staff to see
the AR before they testified for just the reason you stated. They would
not want that report to influence their testimony. But of course you will
just imagine they got to see it even though you have no evidence that they
did.
There is also no evidence that they didn't hear the results of the
autopsy either, so don't claim anything on that score. There are OBVIOUS
differences in what witnesses saw BEFORE the body got to Bethesda, and
after it got there, here's the head wound as seen before and after getting
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They incorporate the AR description of the wound, which was indeed larger
than the original wound, and was around the right side and a bit of the
top as well as the BOH. The original wound as the body left Parkland was
described by Nurse Diana Bowron as strictly at the BOH only.
Quote please.
"Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir."
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"HL: Because I have, I have reports from the morticians in Washington. So,
since you haven't read it-that's good. Because, what you're telling me is
not influenced by what I wrote already. But do you remember any
perforations in the head or did you see any holes or anything like a
bullet hole anywhere on his skull or in the back of the skull?
DB: At the back of the skull, an enormous hole.
HL: And would you-is that in the general area where that drawing- those
drawings-I'm sure you've seen them-where they've got a big piece of skull
missing in the very back of the head?
DB: Yes.
HL: Would you say that the hole's extended as far around as to be just
behind the right ear?
DB: Yes. It was more towards the right ear, definitely, then the left. But
it was, it was big. I mean, I could-and for when I did the thing, I had to
pack, you know, linens into there."
Note that the wound she describes was near to the right ear, and if you
put your right hand back behind your ear, you can feel the location she
was talking about. The hole in the BOH was close to th back part of the
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
An interesting side issue came up when I was digging up the interview
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"DB: No towel, because I washed his hair. This is what I was going to write
to you about all these autopsy photographs with all the blood clots and
everything on the back....
HL: Is there anything peculiar about those pictures?
DB: Very peculiar, very peculiar. (Very long pause as she awaits a
question.)
HL: Well, I think they're fake as hell.
DB: Definitely. Definitely. On those pages that you told me, there's three
together, top of the F 6 and F 7, and something that-all are fake
completely because I washed all the clots out of his hair before I wrapped
it up."
From: http://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/QbgORExR/nurse-diana-bowron
So she noticed the faked autopsy photos too. If they were the ones
shown to the medical panels, then that partly how they were fooled.
That's incredibly damaging to arguments against the blowout to the BOH.
The dozens of witnesses verifying each other aren't crazy or confused as
LN's try to convince people. It's a matter of trust: either the
governmental agency that stole the body to ensure an illegal autopsy
(performed by an agency of the government), or dozens of witnesses/average
citizens not under government command.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If you check the list of Over 39 witnesses, you'll see that many of
the doctors call the wound location occipital or occipital-parietal.
Occipital parietal fits perfectly with the AR placement of the defect.
Post by mainframetech
Occipital is low at the BOH.
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/courses-images/wp-content/uploads/sites/1940/2017/05/29212646/eueywvxjtjq8doz9v1b0.png
Here is a rear diagram of the occipitut and it rises to about the midway
point of the BOH.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Occipital_bone_lateral3.png
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
Chris
claviger
2018-03-29 02:34:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
"Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir."
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"HL: Because I have, I have reports from the morticians in Washington. So,
since you haven't read it-that's good. Because, what you're telling me is
not influenced by what I wrote already. But do you remember any
perforations in the head or did you see any holes or anything like a
bullet hole anywhere on his skull or in the back of the skull?
DB: At the back of the skull, an enormous hole.
HL: And would you-is that in the general area where that drawing- those
drawings-I'm sure you've seen them-where they've got a big piece of skull
missing in the very back of the head?
DB: Yes.
HL: Would you say that the hole's extended as far around as to be just
behind the right ear?
DB: Yes. It was more towards the right ear, definitely, then the left. But
it was, it was big. I mean, I could-and for when I did the thing, I had to
pack, you know, linens into there."
Note that the wound she describes was near to the right ear, and if you
put your right hand back behind your ear, you can feel the location she
was talking about. The hole in the BOH was close to th back part of the
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
An interesting side issue came up when I was digging up the interview
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"DB: No towel, because I washed his hair. This is what I was going to write
to you about all these autopsy photographs with all the blood clots and
everything on the back....
HL: Is there anything peculiar about those pictures?
DB: Very peculiar, very peculiar. (Very long pause as she awaits a
question.)
HL: Well, I think they're fake as hell.
DB: Definitely. Definitely. On those pages that you told me, there's three
together, top of the F 6 and F 7, and something that-all are fake
completely because I washed all the clots out of his hair before I wrapped
it up."
From: http://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/QbgORExR/nurse-diana-bowron
So she noticed the faked autopsy photos too. If they were the ones
shown to the medical panels, then that partly how they were fooled.
That's incredibly damaging to arguments against the blowout to the BOH.
The dozens of witnesses verifying each other aren't crazy or confused as
LN's try to convince people. It's a matter of trust: either the governmental
agency that stole the body to ensure an illegal autopsy (performed by an
agency of the government), or dozens of witnesses/average citizens not
under government command.
Now you have to deal with the fact not one passenger in the SSA security
car close behind the Limousine saw a BOH wound, including two top staff
members at the Whitehouse. Jackie Kennedy said the wound was on top of
the head. Stroble confirmed the large head wound was on the vertex of the
skull. Even Bowron admitted damage to the top of the head.
mainframetech
2018-03-30 01:04:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
"Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir."
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"HL: Because I have, I have reports from the morticians in Washington. So,
since you haven't read it-that's good. Because, what you're telling me is
not influenced by what I wrote already. But do you remember any
perforations in the head or did you see any holes or anything like a
bullet hole anywhere on his skull or in the back of the skull?
DB: At the back of the skull, an enormous hole.
HL: And would you-is that in the general area where that drawing- those
drawings-I'm sure you've seen them-where they've got a big piece of skull
missing in the very back of the head?
DB: Yes.
HL: Would you say that the hole's extended as far around as to be just
behind the right ear?
DB: Yes. It was more towards the right ear, definitely, then the left. But
it was, it was big. I mean, I could-and for when I did the thing, I had to
pack, you know, linens into there."
Note that the wound she describes was near to the right ear, and if you
put your right hand back behind your ear, you can feel the location she
was talking about. The hole in the BOH was close to th back part of the
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
An interesting side issue came up when I was digging up the interview
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"DB: No towel, because I washed his hair. This is what I was going to write
to you about all these autopsy photographs with all the blood clots and
everything on the back....
HL: Is there anything peculiar about those pictures?
DB: Very peculiar, very peculiar. (Very long pause as she awaits a
question.)
HL: Well, I think they're fake as hell.
DB: Definitely. Definitely. On those pages that you told me, there's three
together, top of the F 6 and F 7, and something that-all are fake
completely because I washed all the clots out of his hair before I wrapped
it up."
From: http://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/QbgORExR/nurse-diana-bowron
So she noticed the faked autopsy photos too. If they were the ones
shown to the medical panels, then that partly how they were fooled.
That's incredibly damaging to arguments against the blowout to the BOH.
The dozens of witnesses verifying each other aren't crazy or confused as
LN's try to convince people. It's a matter of trust: either the governmental
agency that stole the body to ensure an illegal autopsy (performed by an
agency of the government), or dozens of witnesses/average citizens not
under government command.
Now you have to deal with the fact not one passenger in the SSA security
car close behind the Limousine saw a BOH wound, including two top staff
members at the Whitehouse. Jackie Kennedy said the wound was on top of
the head. Stroble confirmed the large head wound was on the vertex of the
skull. Even Bowron admitted damage to the top of the head.
From Bowron testimony:

"Mr. SPECTER - And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to
President Kennedy's condition?
Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee
and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other
side of the car I saw the condition of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir."

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-30 23:56:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
"Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir."
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"HL: Because I have, I have reports from the morticians in Washington. So,
since you haven't read it-that's good. Because, what you're telling me is
not influenced by what I wrote already. But do you remember any
perforations in the head or did you see any holes or anything like a
bullet hole anywhere on his skull or in the back of the skull?
DB: At the back of the skull, an enormous hole.
HL: And would you-is that in the general area where that drawing- those
drawings-I'm sure you've seen them-where they've got a big piece of skull
missing in the very back of the head?
DB: Yes.
HL: Would you say that the hole's extended as far around as to be just
behind the right ear?
DB: Yes. It was more towards the right ear, definitely, then the left. But
it was, it was big. I mean, I could-and for when I did the thing, I had to
pack, you know, linens into there."
Note that the wound she describes was near to the right ear, and if you
put your right hand back behind your ear, you can feel the location she
was talking about. The hole in the BOH was close to th back part of the
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
An interesting side issue came up when I was digging up the interview
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"DB: No towel, because I washed his hair. This is what I was going to write
to you about all these autopsy photographs with all the blood clots and
everything on the back....
HL: Is there anything peculiar about those pictures?
DB: Very peculiar, very peculiar. (Very long pause as she awaits a
question.)
HL: Well, I think they're fake as hell.
DB: Definitely. Definitely. On those pages that you told me, there's three
together, top of the F 6 and F 7, and something that-all are fake
completely because I washed all the clots out of his hair before I wrapped
it up."
From: http://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/QbgORExR/nurse-diana-bowron
So she noticed the faked autopsy photos too. If they were the ones
shown to the medical panels, then that partly how they were fooled.
That's incredibly damaging to arguments against the blowout to the BOH.
The dozens of witnesses verifying each other aren't crazy or confused as
LN's try to convince people. It's a matter of trust: either the governmental
agency that stole the body to ensure an illegal autopsy (performed by an
agency of the government), or dozens of witnesses/average citizens not
under government command.
Now you have to deal with the fact not one passenger in the SSA security
car close behind the Limousine saw a BOH wound, including two top staff
members at the Whitehouse. Jackie Kennedy said the wound was on top of
the head. Stroble confirmed the large head wound was on the vertex of the
skull. Even Bowron admitted damage to the top of the head.
"Mr. SPECTER - And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to
President Kennedy's condition?
Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee
and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other
side of the car I saw the condition of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir."
Chris
As usual for an alterationist you cherry pick and do not tell the whole
story. Bowron was the nurse who prepared the body for shipping and she
packed gauze into the head wound, and we can see it sticking out in the
top of the head, not the back.
bigdog
2018-03-31 02:35:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
"Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir."
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"HL: Because I have, I have reports from the morticians in Washington. So,
since you haven't read it-that's good. Because, what you're telling me is
not influenced by what I wrote already. But do you remember any
perforations in the head or did you see any holes or anything like a
bullet hole anywhere on his skull or in the back of the skull?
DB: At the back of the skull, an enormous hole.
HL: And would you-is that in the general area where that drawing- those
drawings-I'm sure you've seen them-where they've got a big piece of skull
missing in the very back of the head?
DB: Yes.
HL: Would you say that the hole's extended as far around as to be just
behind the right ear?
DB: Yes. It was more towards the right ear, definitely, then the left. But
it was, it was big. I mean, I could-and for when I did the thing, I had to
pack, you know, linens into there."
Note that the wound she describes was near to the right ear, and if you
put your right hand back behind your ear, you can feel the location she
was talking about. The hole in the BOH was close to th back part of the
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
An interesting side issue came up when I was digging up the interview
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"DB: No towel, because I washed his hair. This is what I was going to write
to you about all these autopsy photographs with all the blood clots and
everything on the back....
HL: Is there anything peculiar about those pictures?
DB: Very peculiar, very peculiar. (Very long pause as she awaits a
question.)
HL: Well, I think they're fake as hell.
DB: Definitely. Definitely. On those pages that you told me, there's three
together, top of the F 6 and F 7, and something that-all are fake
completely because I washed all the clots out of his hair before I wrapped
it up."
From: http://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/QbgORExR/nurse-diana-bowron
So she noticed the faked autopsy photos too. If they were the ones
shown to the medical panels, then that partly how they were fooled.
That's incredibly damaging to arguments against the blowout to the BOH.
The dozens of witnesses verifying each other aren't crazy or confused as
LN's try to convince people. It's a matter of trust: either the governmental
agency that stole the body to ensure an illegal autopsy (performed by an
agency of the government), or dozens of witnesses/average citizens not
under government command.
Now you have to deal with the fact not one passenger in the SSA security
car close behind the Limousine saw a BOH wound, including two top staff
members at the Whitehouse. Jackie Kennedy said the wound was on top of
the head. Stroble confirmed the large head wound was on the vertex of the
skull. Even Bowron admitted damage to the top of the head.
"Mr. SPECTER - And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to
President Kennedy's condition?
Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee
and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other
side of the car I saw the condition of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir."
With all the blood it would be very difficult to see a small entrance
wound. With the forward flaps closed she wouldn't be able to determine the
extent of the blowout with just a quick glance. That would have required a
close inspection of the head wound which nobody at Parkland did in the
brief time they were trying to save his life. As Dr. Carrico explained it
quite well, the first order of business is to restore basic functions, a
heartbeat and respiration. Obviously those efforts were going to be futile
but that's what they tried to do anyway.

I know you refuse to accept it because it is incompatible with your
beliefs but the Z-film is still the best witness we have and it showed
that JFK's head was blown open all along the upper right side. It fits
perfectly with the AR which described the skull defect as being chiefly
parietal extending somewhat into the occipital and temporal regions. Since
your can't reconcile the Z-film or the AR with what you would rather
believe, you simply embrace whatever excuse you can find to dismiss both
as fraudulent. I guess when you don't want to make your beliefs fit the
evidence you are forced to try to make the evidence fit your beliefs.
mainframetech
2018-03-31 23:05:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
"Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir."
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"HL: Because I have, I have reports from the morticians in Washington. So,
since you haven't read it-that's good. Because, what you're telling me is
not influenced by what I wrote already. But do you remember any
perforations in the head or did you see any holes or anything like a
bullet hole anywhere on his skull or in the back of the skull?
DB: At the back of the skull, an enormous hole.
HL: And would you-is that in the general area where that drawing- those
drawings-I'm sure you've seen them-where they've got a big piece of skull
missing in the very back of the head?
DB: Yes.
HL: Would you say that the hole's extended as far around as to be just
behind the right ear?
DB: Yes. It was more towards the right ear, definitely, then the left. But
it was, it was big. I mean, I could-and for when I did the thing, I had to
pack, you know, linens into there."
Note that the wound she describes was near to the right ear, and if you
put your right hand back behind your ear, you can feel the location she
was talking about. The hole in the BOH was close to th back part of the
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
An interesting side issue came up when I was digging up the interview
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"DB: No towel, because I washed his hair. This is what I was going to write
to you about all these autopsy photographs with all the blood clots and
everything on the back....
HL: Is there anything peculiar about those pictures?
DB: Very peculiar, very peculiar. (Very long pause as she awaits a
question.)
HL: Well, I think they're fake as hell.
DB: Definitely. Definitely. On those pages that you told me, there's three
together, top of the F 6 and F 7, and something that-all are fake
completely because I washed all the clots out of his hair before I wrapped
it up."
From: http://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/QbgORExR/nurse-diana-bowron
So she noticed the faked autopsy photos too. If they were the ones
shown to the medical panels, then that partly how they were fooled.
That's incredibly damaging to arguments against the blowout to the BOH.
The dozens of witnesses verifying each other aren't crazy or confused as
LN's try to convince people. It's a matter of trust: either the governmental
agency that stole the body to ensure an illegal autopsy (performed by an
agency of the government), or dozens of witnesses/average citizens not
under government command.
Now you have to deal with the fact not one passenger in the SSA security
car close behind the Limousine saw a BOH wound, including two top staff
members at the Whitehouse. Jackie Kennedy said the wound was on top of
the head. Stroble confirmed the large head wound was on the vertex of the
skull. Even Bowron admitted damage to the top of the head.
"Mr. SPECTER - And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to
President Kennedy's condition?
Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee
and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other
side of the car I saw the condition of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir."
With all the blood it would be very difficult to see a small entrance
wound. With the forward flaps closed she wouldn't be able to determine the
extent of the blowout with just a quick glance. That would have required a
close inspection of the head wound which nobody at Parkland did in the
brief time they were trying to save his life.
WRONG! What a crock! "with all the blood" is silly, since Nurse Diana
Bowron was specifically washing the blood off the body and the hair. And
that also gave her a close look at the wound in the BOH, as noted above,
and it was the only one she saw. There were no "flaps" there either at
that time. By handling the head, it would be OBVIOUS that there was a
breakup of parts of the head if that were true. I've had that experience
of handling a head after the skull had been cracked in many places, and it
is immediately OBVIOUS. There were NO "flaps" at that time. The only
flap that was there on the right side over the ear was made by Humes and
Boswell at Bethesda.
Post by bigdog
As Dr. Carrico explained it
quite well, the first order of business is to restore basic functions, a
heartbeat and respiration. Obviously those efforts were going to be futile
but that's what they tried to do anyway.
I know you refuse to accept it because it is incompatible with your
beliefs but the Z-film is still the best witness we have and it showed
that JFK's head was blown open all along the upper right side. It fits
perfectly with the AR which described the skull defect as being chiefly
parietal extending somewhat into the occipital and temporal regions. Since
your can't reconcile the Z-film or the AR with what you would rather
believe, you simply embrace whatever excuse you can find to dismiss both
as fraudulent. I guess when you don't want to make your beliefs fit the
evidence you are forced to try to make the evidence fit your beliefs.
WRONG! How silly of you to try and decide what I think! I think my
thoughts usually based on the evidence, and that shows us that the flap of
bone above the right ear was not there until Bethesda, and that meant the
point where Humes and Boswell did their clandestine work on the body. So
it was created by them. Their information could well be passed on to the
CIA film alteration crew to be added to the film, making the 2 match, and
get the suckers believing the scam. There is no doubt the film was
altered.

Chris
bigdog
2018-04-01 19:51:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
"Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir."
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"HL: Because I have, I have reports from the morticians in Washington. So,
since you haven't read it-that's good. Because, what you're telling me is
not influenced by what I wrote already. But do you remember any
perforations in the head or did you see any holes or anything like a
bullet hole anywhere on his skull or in the back of the skull?
DB: At the back of the skull, an enormous hole.
HL: And would you-is that in the general area where that drawing- those
drawings-I'm sure you've seen them-where they've got a big piece of skull
missing in the very back of the head?
DB: Yes.
HL: Would you say that the hole's extended as far around as to be just
behind the right ear?
DB: Yes. It was more towards the right ear, definitely, then the left. But
it was, it was big. I mean, I could-and for when I did the thing, I had to
pack, you know, linens into there."
Note that the wound she describes was near to the right ear, and if you
put your right hand back behind your ear, you can feel the location she
was talking about. The hole in the BOH was close to th back part of the
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
An interesting side issue came up when I was digging up the interview
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"DB: No towel, because I washed his hair. This is what I was going to write
to you about all these autopsy photographs with all the blood clots and
everything on the back....
HL: Is there anything peculiar about those pictures?
DB: Very peculiar, very peculiar. (Very long pause as she awaits a
question.)
HL: Well, I think they're fake as hell.
DB: Definitely. Definitely. On those pages that you told me, there's three
together, top of the F 6 and F 7, and something that-all are fake
completely because I washed all the clots out of his hair before I wrapped
it up."
From: http://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/QbgORExR/nurse-diana-bowron
So she noticed the faked autopsy photos too. If they were the ones
shown to the medical panels, then that partly how they were fooled.
That's incredibly damaging to arguments against the blowout to the BOH.
The dozens of witnesses verifying each other aren't crazy or confused as
LN's try to convince people. It's a matter of trust: either the governmental
agency that stole the body to ensure an illegal autopsy (performed by an
agency of the government), or dozens of witnesses/average citizens not
under government command.
Now you have to deal with the fact not one passenger in the SSA security
car close behind the Limousine saw a BOH wound, including two top staff
members at the Whitehouse. Jackie Kennedy said the wound was on top of
the head. Stroble confirmed the large head wound was on the vertex of the
skull. Even Bowron admitted damage to the top of the head.
"Mr. SPECTER - And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to
President Kennedy's condition?
Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee
and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other
side of the car I saw the condition of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir."
With all the blood it would be very difficult to see a small entrance
wound. With the forward flaps closed she wouldn't be able to determine the
extent of the blowout with just a quick glance. That would have required a
close inspection of the head wound which nobody at Parkland did in the
brief time they were trying to save his life.
WRONG! What a crock! "with all the blood" is silly, since Nurse Diana
Bowron was specifically washing the blood off the body and the hair.
And all the while the blood kept flowing. That's why when the body reached
Bethesda the wrap around the head was soaked in blood.
Post by mainframetech
And
that also gave her a close look at the wound in the BOH, as noted above,
and it was the only one she saw. There were no "flaps" there either at
that time.
Of course there were. We see them in the Z-film. Most of us aren't foolish
enough to dismiss that.
Post by mainframetech
By handling the head, it would be OBVIOUS that there was a
breakup of parts of the head if that were true.
It is an absolute certainty that the skull broke up because that's what
happens to a skull when it is hit by a bullet fired from a high powered
rifle. That happens 100% of the time. That would have been true even if
the shot had been fired from the GK or from in front of the limo as you
have claimed.
Post by mainframetech
I've had that experience
of handling a head after the skull had been cracked in many places, and it
is immediately OBVIOUS. There were NO "flaps" at that time. The only
flap that was there on the right side over the ear was made by Humes and
Boswell at Bethesda.
Pure fantasy.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
As Dr. Carrico explained it
quite well, the first order of business is to restore basic functions, a
heartbeat and respiration. Obviously those efforts were going to be futile
but that's what they tried to do anyway.
I know you refuse to accept it because it is incompatible with your
beliefs but the Z-film is still the best witness we have and it showed
that JFK's head was blown open all along the upper right side. It fits
perfectly with the AR which described the skull defect as being chiefly
parietal extending somewhat into the occipital and temporal regions. Since
your can't reconcile the Z-film or the AR with what you would rather
believe, you simply embrace whatever excuse you can find to dismiss both
as fraudulent. I guess when you don't want to make your beliefs fit the
evidence you are forced to try to make the evidence fit your beliefs.
WRONG! How silly of you to try and decide what I think!
That is a pretty silly thing to do. How could anybody know what and how
you think?
Post by mainframetech
I think my
thoughts usually based on the evidence, and that shows us that the flap of
bone above the right ear was not there until Bethesda, and that meant the
point where Humes and Boswell did their clandestine work on the body. So
it was created by them. Their information could well be passed on to the
CIA film alteration crew to be added to the film, making the 2 match, and
get the suckers believing the scam. There is no doubt the film was
altered.
This is a perfect example of what I just wrote. I have no idea how anybody
could arrive at such a silly conclusion. It is amazing the silly things
you will dream up to try to hold your fantasies together. So no you have
Humes and Boswell not only altering the head wound but passing it on to
the CIA so they could alter the Z-film to match what they did. So how did
they get Zapruder and Newman to describe exactly what we see in the
Z-film. The gave their accounts on live local TV within hours of the
shooting.
mainframetech
2018-04-02 15:08:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
"Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir."
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"HL: Because I have, I have reports from the morticians in Washington. So,
since you haven't read it-that's good. Because, what you're telling me is
not influenced by what I wrote already. But do you remember any
perforations in the head or did you see any holes or anything like a
bullet hole anywhere on his skull or in the back of the skull?
DB: At the back of the skull, an enormous hole.
HL: And would you-is that in the general area where that drawing- those
drawings-I'm sure you've seen them-where they've got a big piece of skull
missing in the very back of the head?
DB: Yes.
HL: Would you say that the hole's extended as far around as to be just
behind the right ear?
DB: Yes. It was more towards the right ear, definitely, then the left. But
it was, it was big. I mean, I could-and for when I did the thing, I had to
pack, you know, linens into there."
Note that the wound she describes was near to the right ear, and if you
put your right hand back behind your ear, you can feel the location she
was talking about. The hole in the BOH was close to th back part of the
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
An interesting side issue came up when I was digging up the interview
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"DB: No towel, because I washed his hair. This is what I was going to write
to you about all these autopsy photographs with all the blood clots and
everything on the back....
HL: Is there anything peculiar about those pictures?
DB: Very peculiar, very peculiar. (Very long pause as she awaits a
question.)
HL: Well, I think they're fake as hell.
DB: Definitely. Definitely. On those pages that you told me, there's three
together, top of the F 6 and F 7, and something that-all are fake
completely because I washed all the clots out of his hair before I wrapped
it up."
From: http://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/QbgORExR/nurse-diana-bowron
So she noticed the faked autopsy photos too. If they were the ones
shown to the medical panels, then that partly how they were fooled.
That's incredibly damaging to arguments against the blowout to the BOH.
The dozens of witnesses verifying each other aren't crazy or confused as
LN's try to convince people. It's a matter of trust: either the governmental
agency that stole the body to ensure an illegal autopsy (performed by an
agency of the government), or dozens of witnesses/average citizens not
under government command.
Now you have to deal with the fact not one passenger in the SSA security
car close behind the Limousine saw a BOH wound, including two top staff
members at the Whitehouse. Jackie Kennedy said the wound was on top of
the head. Stroble confirmed the large head wound was on the vertex of the
skull. Even Bowron admitted damage to the top of the head.
"Mr. SPECTER - And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to
President Kennedy's condition?
Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee
and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other
side of the car I saw the condition of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir."
With all the blood it would be very difficult to see a small entrance
wound. With the forward flaps closed she wouldn't be able to determine the
extent of the blowout with just a quick glance. That would have required a
close inspection of the head wound which nobody at Parkland did in the
brief time they were trying to save his life.
WRONG! What a crock! "with all the blood" is silly, since Nurse Diana
Bowron was specifically washing the blood off the body and the hair.
And all the while the blood kept flowing. That's why when the body reached
Bethesda the wrap around the head was soaked in blood.
Bowron said she stuffed the big hole with linens, and wrapped the head
after she had done her cleaning of the blood of the hair.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And
that also gave her a close look at the wound in the BOH, as noted above,
and it was the only one she saw. There were no "flaps" there either at
that time.
Of course there were. We see them in the Z-film. Most of us aren't foolish
enough to dismiss that.
Well, being foolish is a talent certain people have. Are you
applying?

Did it occur to you that the Z-film was altered AFTER the phony work
on the body was done? That the description of what was done to the body
was passed on AFTER it was done, so it could appear in the Z-film? As to
other people seeing the bone flap fly away, that may take care of some of
the people after they saw the Z-film, those others are simply chance.
They don't add up to over 39 witnesses though.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
By handling the head, it would be OBVIOUS that there was a
breakup of parts of the head if that were true.
It is an absolute certainty that the skull broke up because that's what
happens to a skull when it is hit by a bullet fired from a high powered
rifle. That happens 100% of the time. That would have been true even if
the shot had been fired from the GK or from in front of the limo as you
have claimed.
I'm so happy for you that you believe that. Where's the proof for
that?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I've had that experience
of handling a head after the skull had been cracked in many places, and it
is immediately OBVIOUS. There were NO "flaps" at that time. The only
flap that was there on the right side over the ear was made by Humes and
Boswell at Bethesda.
Pure fantasy.
Pure OPINION.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
As Dr. Carrico explained it
quite well, the first order of business is to restore basic functions, a
heartbeat and respiration. Obviously those efforts were going to be futile
but that's what they tried to do anyway.
I know you refuse to accept it because it is incompatible with your
beliefs but the Z-film is still the best witness we have and it showed
that JFK's head was blown open all along the upper right side. It fits
perfectly with the AR which described the skull defect as being chiefly
parietal extending somewhat into the occipital and temporal regions. Since
your can't reconcile the Z-film or the AR with what you would rather
believe, you simply embrace whatever excuse you can find to dismiss both
as fraudulent. I guess when you don't want to make your beliefs fit the
evidence you are forced to try to make the evidence fit your beliefs.
WRONG! How silly of you to try and decide what I think!
That is a pretty silly thing to do. How could anybody know what and how
you think?
Post by mainframetech
I think my
thoughts usually based on the evidence, and that shows us that the flap of
bone above the right ear was not there until Bethesda, and that meant the
point where Humes and Boswell did their clandestine work on the body. So
it was created by them. Their information could well be passed on to the
CIA film alteration crew to be added to the film, making the 2 match, and
get the suckers believing the scam. There is no doubt the film was
altered.
This is a perfect example of what I just wrote. I have no idea how anybody
could arrive at such a silly conclusion. It is amazing the silly things
you will dream up to try to hold your fantasies together. So no you have
Humes and Boswell not only altering the head wound but passing it on to
the CIA so they could alter the Z-film to match what they did. So how did
they get Zapruder and Newman to describe exactly what we see in the
Z-film. The gave their accounts on live local TV within hours of the
shooting.
I anwered that. At some point maybe they saw the Z-film and from then
on, they stated that there was a flap of bone. Or for a few, simply
chance. It won't equal over 39 witnesses though.

Chris
bigdog
2018-04-03 00:36:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
"Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir."
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"HL: Because I have, I have reports from the morticians in Washington. So,
since you haven't read it-that's good. Because, what you're telling me is
not influenced by what I wrote already. But do you remember any
perforations in the head or did you see any holes or anything like a
bullet hole anywhere on his skull or in the back of the skull?
DB: At the back of the skull, an enormous hole.
HL: And would you-is that in the general area where that drawing- those
drawings-I'm sure you've seen them-where they've got a big piece of skull
missing in the very back of the head?
DB: Yes.
HL: Would you say that the hole's extended as far around as to be just
behind the right ear?
DB: Yes. It was more towards the right ear, definitely, then the left. But
it was, it was big. I mean, I could-and for when I did the thing, I had to
pack, you know, linens into there."
Note that the wound she describes was near to the right ear, and if you
put your right hand back behind your ear, you can feel the location she
was talking about. The hole in the BOH was close to th back part of the
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
An interesting side issue came up when I was digging up the interview
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"DB: No towel, because I washed his hair. This is what I was going to write
to you about all these autopsy photographs with all the blood clots and
everything on the back....
HL: Is there anything peculiar about those pictures?
DB: Very peculiar, very peculiar. (Very long pause as she awaits a
question.)
HL: Well, I think they're fake as hell.
DB: Definitely. Definitely. On those pages that you told me, there's three
together, top of the F 6 and F 7, and something that-all are fake
completely because I washed all the clots out of his hair before I wrapped
it up."
From: http://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/QbgORExR/nurse-diana-bowron
So she noticed the faked autopsy photos too. If they were the ones
shown to the medical panels, then that partly how they were fooled.
That's incredibly damaging to arguments against the blowout to the BOH.
The dozens of witnesses verifying each other aren't crazy or confused as
LN's try to convince people. It's a matter of trust: either the governmental
agency that stole the body to ensure an illegal autopsy (performed by an
agency of the government), or dozens of witnesses/average citizens not
under government command.
Now you have to deal with the fact not one passenger in the SSA security
car close behind the Limousine saw a BOH wound, including two top staff
members at the Whitehouse. Jackie Kennedy said the wound was on top of
the head. Stroble confirmed the large head wound was on the vertex of the
skull. Even Bowron admitted damage to the top of the head.
"Mr. SPECTER - And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to
President Kennedy's condition?
Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee
and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other
side of the car I saw the condition of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir."
With all the blood it would be very difficult to see a small entrance
wound. With the forward flaps closed she wouldn't be able to determine the
extent of the blowout with just a quick glance. That would have required a
close inspection of the head wound which nobody at Parkland did in the
brief time they were trying to save his life.
WRONG! What a crock! "with all the blood" is silly, since Nurse Diana
Bowron was specifically washing the blood off the body and the hair.
And all the while the blood kept flowing. That's why when the body reached
Bethesda the wrap around the head was soaked in blood.
Bowron said she stuffed the big hole with linens, and wrapped the head
after she had done her cleaning of the blood of the hair.
So?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And
that also gave her a close look at the wound in the BOH, as noted above,
and it was the only one she saw. There were no "flaps" there either at
that time.
Of course there were. We see them in the Z-film. Most of us aren't foolish
enough to dismiss that.
Well, being foolish is a talent certain people have. Are you
applying?
Did it occur to you that the Z-film was altered AFTER the phony work
on the body was done?
If I had, I would be too embarrassed to admit it.
Post by mainframetech
That the description of what was done to the body
was passed on AFTER it was done, so it could appear in the Z-film? As to
other people seeing the bone flap fly away, that may take care of some of
the people after they saw the Z-film, those others are simply chance.
They don't add up to over 39 witnesses though.
Aren't you forgetting that Zapruder and Newman reported what they saw on
live local TV well before the body had been returned to Washington? How
did "they" get them to describe exactly the same thing the AR described
and what we later saw in the Z-film. Had your plotters unlocked the
mystery of time travel?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
By handling the head, it would be OBVIOUS that there was a
breakup of parts of the head if that were true.
It is an absolute certainty that the skull broke up because that's what
happens to a skull when it is hit by a bullet fired from a high powered
rifle. That happens 100% of the time. That would have been true even if
the shot had been fired from the GK or from in front of the limo as you
have claimed.
I'm so happy for you that you believe that. Where's the proof for
that?
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=peter+cummings+jfk+skull+fractures&view=detail&mid=565781B284D2884DBF38565781B284D2884DBF38&FORM=VIRE
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I've had that experience
of handling a head after the skull had been cracked in many places, and it
is immediately OBVIOUS. There were NO "flaps" at that time. The only
flap that was there on the right side over the ear was made by Humes and
Boswell at Bethesda.
Pure fantasy.
Pure OPINION.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
As Dr. Carrico explained it
quite well, the first order of business is to restore basic functions, a
heartbeat and respiration. Obviously those efforts were going to be futile
but that's what they tried to do anyway.
I know you refuse to accept it because it is incompatible with your
beliefs but the Z-film is still the best witness we have and it showed
that JFK's head was blown open all along the upper right side. It fits
perfectly with the AR which described the skull defect as being chiefly
parietal extending somewhat into the occipital and temporal regions. Since
your can't reconcile the Z-film or the AR with what you would rather
believe, you simply embrace whatever excuse you can find to dismiss both
as fraudulent. I guess when you don't want to make your beliefs fit the
evidence you are forced to try to make the evidence fit your beliefs.
WRONG! How silly of you to try and decide what I think!
That is a pretty silly thing to do. How could anybody know what and how
you think?
Post by mainframetech
I think my
thoughts usually based on the evidence, and that shows us that the flap of
bone above the right ear was not there until Bethesda, and that meant the
point where Humes and Boswell did their clandestine work on the body. So
it was created by them. Their information could well be passed on to the
CIA film alteration crew to be added to the film, making the 2 match, and
get the suckers believing the scam. There is no doubt the film was
altered.
This is a perfect example of what I just wrote. I have no idea how anybody
could arrive at such a silly conclusion. It is amazing the silly things
you will dream up to try to hold your fantasies together. So no you have
Humes and Boswell not only altering the head wound but passing it on to
the CIA so they could alter the Z-film to match what they did. So how did
they get Zapruder and Newman to describe exactly what we see in the
Z-film. The gave their accounts on live local TV within hours of the
shooting.
I anwered that. At some point maybe they saw the Z-film and from then
on, they stated that there was a flap of bone. Or for a few, simply
chance. It won't equal over 39 witnesses though.
You have a real problem with timelines. Zapruder and Newman were
interviewed on live local TV shortly after the shooting and before the
Z-film was ever developed so they couldn't have been influenced by the
film or anything other then seen JFK's head explode right in front of
them.
mainframetech
2018-04-03 23:43:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
"Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir."
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"HL: Because I have, I have reports from the morticians in Washington. So,
since you haven't read it-that's good. Because, what you're telling me is
not influenced by what I wrote already. But do you remember any
perforations in the head or did you see any holes or anything like a
bullet hole anywhere on his skull or in the back of the skull?
DB: At the back of the skull, an enormous hole.
HL: And would you-is that in the general area where that drawing- those
drawings-I'm sure you've seen them-where they've got a big piece of skull
missing in the very back of the head?
DB: Yes.
HL: Would you say that the hole's extended as far around as to be just
behind the right ear?
DB: Yes. It was more towards the right ear, definitely, then the left. But
it was, it was big. I mean, I could-and for when I did the thing, I had to
pack, you know, linens into there."
Note that the wound she describes was near to the right ear, and if you
put your right hand back behind your ear, you can feel the location she
was talking about. The hole in the BOH was close to th back part of the
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
An interesting side issue came up when I was digging up the interview
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"DB: No towel, because I washed his hair. This is what I was going to write
to you about all these autopsy photographs with all the blood clots and
everything on the back....
HL: Is there anything peculiar about those pictures?
DB: Very peculiar, very peculiar. (Very long pause as she awaits a
question.)
HL: Well, I think they're fake as hell.
DB: Definitely. Definitely. On those pages that you told me, there's three
together, top of the F 6 and F 7, and something that-all are fake
completely because I washed all the clots out of his hair before I wrapped
it up."
From: http://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/QbgORExR/nurse-diana-bowron
So she noticed the faked autopsy photos too. If they were the ones
shown to the medical panels, then that partly how they were fooled.
That's incredibly damaging to arguments against the blowout to the BOH.
The dozens of witnesses verifying each other aren't crazy or confused as
LN's try to convince people. It's a matter of trust: either the governmental
agency that stole the body to ensure an illegal autopsy (performed by an
agency of the government), or dozens of witnesses/average citizens not
under government command.
Now you have to deal with the fact not one passenger in the SSA security
car close behind the Limousine saw a BOH wound, including two top staff
members at the Whitehouse. Jackie Kennedy said the wound was on top of
the head. Stroble confirmed the large head wound was on the vertex of the
skull. Even Bowron admitted damage to the top of the head.
"Mr. SPECTER - And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to
President Kennedy's condition?
Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee
and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other
side of the car I saw the condition of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir."
With all the blood it would be very difficult to see a small entrance
wound. With the forward flaps closed she wouldn't be able to determine the
extent of the blowout with just a quick glance. That would have required a
close inspection of the head wound which nobody at Parkland did in the
brief time they were trying to save his life.
WRONG! What a crock! "with all the blood" is silly, since Nurse Diana
Bowron was specifically washing the blood off the body and the hair.
And all the while the blood kept flowing. That's why when the body reached
Bethesda the wrap around the head was soaked in blood.
Bowron said she stuffed the big hole with linens, and wrapped the head
after she had done her cleaning of the blood of the hair.
So?
It's amazing what you don't know about the body! When dead, the heart
doesn't pump, and the only blood leakage is at most a trickle, not a
"flow" like a fire hose! The blood flow was minor, for instance the
bullet hole in the forehead/temple area didn't leak blood, since it was
usually pointing up.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And
that also gave her a close look at the wound in the BOH, as noted above,
and it was the only one she saw. There were no "flaps" there either at
that time.
Of course there were. We see them in the Z-film. Most of us aren't foolish
enough to dismiss that.
Well, being foolish is a talent certain people have. Are you
applying?
Did it occur to you that the Z-film was altered AFTER the phony work
on the body was done?
If I had, I would be too embarrassed to admit it.
Yup, that figures, you would avoid real evidence just to save face.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That the description of what was done to the body
was passed on AFTER it was done, so it could appear in the Z-film? As to
other people seeing the bone flap fly away, that may take care of some of
the people after they saw the Z-film, those others are simply chance.
They don't add up to over 39 witnesses though.
Aren't you forgetting that Zapruder and Newman reported what they saw on
live local TV well before the body had been returned to Washington? How
did "they" get them to describe exactly the same thing the AR described
and what we later saw in the Z-film. Had your plotters unlocked the
mystery of time travel?
WRONG! Didn't you see me mention "those others"?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
By handling the head, it would be OBVIOUS that there was a
breakup of parts of the head if that were true.
It is an absolute certainty that the skull broke up because that's what
happens to a skull when it is hit by a bullet fired from a high powered
rifle. That happens 100% of the time. That would have been true even if
the shot had been fired from the GK or from in front of the limo as you
have claimed.
I'm so happy for you that you believe that. Where's the proof for
that?
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=peter+cummings+jfk+skull+fractures&view=detail&mid=565781B284D2884DBF38565781B284D2884DBF38&FORM=VIRE
I went to your kooky LN site, but the first video didn't work. I'm
betting Peter Cummings, who has not been that great of an expert, will say
it was just in this case, that the bullet cracked the skull, and since he
didn't know the kill shot came from the front, he would be completely
wrong.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I've had that experience
of handling a head after the skull had been cracked in many places, and it
is immediately OBVIOUS. There were NO "flaps" at that time. The only
flap that was there on the right side over the ear was made by Humes and
Boswell at Bethesda.
Pure fantasy.
Pure OPINION.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
As Dr. Carrico explained it
quite well, the first order of business is to restore basic functions, a
heartbeat and respiration. Obviously those efforts were going to be futile
but that's what they tried to do anyway.
I know you refuse to accept it because it is incompatible with your
beliefs but the Z-film is still the best witness we have and it showed
that JFK's head was blown open all along the upper right side. It fits
perfectly with the AR which described the skull defect as being chiefly
parietal extending somewhat into the occipital and temporal regions. Since
your can't reconcile the Z-film or the AR with what you would rather
believe, you simply embrace whatever excuse you can find to dismiss both
as fraudulent. I guess when you don't want to make your beliefs fit the
evidence you are forced to try to make the evidence fit your beliefs.
WRONG! How silly of you to try and decide what I think!
That is a pretty silly thing to do. How could anybody know what and how
you think?
Post by mainframetech
I think my
thoughts usually based on the evidence, and that shows us that the flap of
bone above the right ear was not there until Bethesda, and that meant the
point where Humes and Boswell did their clandestine work on the body. So
it was created by them. Their information could well be passed on to the
CIA film alteration crew to be added to the film, making the 2 match, and
get the suckers believing the scam. There is no doubt the film was
altered.
This is a perfect example of what I just wrote. I have no idea how anybody
could arrive at such a silly conclusion. It is amazing the silly things
you will dream up to try to hold your fantasies together. So no you have
Humes and Boswell not only altering the head wound but passing it on to
the CIA so they could alter the Z-film to match what they did. So how did
they get Zapruder and Newman to describe exactly what we see in the
Z-film. The gave their accounts on live local TV within hours of the
shooting.
I answered that. At some point maybe they saw the Z-film and from then
on, they stated that there was a flap of bone. Or for a few, simply
chance. It won't equal over 39 witnesses though. And if shown on TV anywhere, it can be reproduced anywhere.
You have a real problem with timelines. Zapruder and Newman were
interviewed on live local TV shortly after the shooting and before the
Z-film was ever developed so they couldn't have been influenced by the
film or anything other then seen JFK's head explode right in front of
them.
Did they explain about the flap of bone flying out? And tell me why
over 39 eyewitnesses, many with medical training, did not see the flap of
bone before Bethesda. And remember, of that group, many looked down at
the head from no more than 2 feet away, not 30-40 feet from the street
like Zapruder. Robinson actually packed the wound for burial, and Nurse
Diana Bowron handled the head while washing the hair, and they saw the
'large hole' in the BOH.

Chris
Steve BH
2018-04-05 02:42:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Did they explain about the flap of bone flying out? And tell me why
over 39 eyewitnesses, many with medical training, did not see the flap of
bone before Bethesda. And remember, of that group, many looked down at
the head from no more than 2 feet away, not 30-40 feet from the street
like Zapruder. Robinson actually packed the wound for burial, and Nurse
Diana Bowron handled the head while washing the hair, and they saw the
'large hole' in the BOH.
Chris
I think you answered your own question. In a skull that delicate, packing
it full of gauze may have caused pressure that pushed out a flap, either
immediately or during transit.

Also washing hair and putting flaps back in position. It's all "reverse
surgery." Jackie did some, Bowron did some. By the time they got done, JFK
looked pretty good. Just soaked strips of cotton gauze stuck to some
ribbons of scalp hanging out. No giant holes visible at all. And the
autopsy had yet to start formally with the Rokitansky "Y incision."
mainframetech
2018-04-05 22:59:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Did they explain about the flap of bone flying out? And tell me why
over 39 eyewitnesses, many with medical training, did not see the flap of
bone before Bethesda. And remember, of that group, many looked down at
the head from no more than 2 feet away, not 30-40 feet from the street
like Zapruder. Robinson actually packed the wound for burial, and Nurse
Diana Bowron handled the head while washing the hair, and they saw the
'large hole' in the BOH.
Chris
I think you answered your own question. In a skull that delicate, packing
it full of gauze may have caused pressure that pushed out a flap, either
immediately or during transit.
Also washing hair and putting flaps back in position. It's all "reverse
surgery." Jackie did some, Bowron did some. By the time they got done, JFK
looked pretty good. Just soaked strips of cotton gauze stuck to some
ribbons of scalp hanging out. No giant holes visible at all. And the
autopsy had yet to start formally with the Rokitansky "Y incision."
As usual, you leave something out. I've had the experience of handling
a head that had been slammed around and cracked like an egg under the
scalp. You know it immediately when you handle the head. You can feel
the plates under the scalp movie. Nurse Diana Bowron did NOT mention any
such wounds when asked, nor did anything open or close during her washing
of the hair. There were NO bone flaps to put back in place by anyone.
Jackie was holding the head because she saw a piece of skull and brain go
flying backward. It's why she went onto the trunk of the limo, to
retrieve it, probably in hope they could somehow put it back like a lost
finger.

Chris
bigdog
2018-04-07 00:52:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Did they explain about the flap of bone flying out? And tell me why
over 39 eyewitnesses, many with medical training, did not see the flap of
bone before Bethesda. And remember, of that group, many looked down at
the head from no more than 2 feet away, not 30-40 feet from the street
like Zapruder. Robinson actually packed the wound for burial, and Nurse
Diana Bowron handled the head while washing the hair, and they saw the
'large hole' in the BOH.
Chris
I think you answered your own question. In a skull that delicate, packing
it full of gauze may have caused pressure that pushed out a flap, either
immediately or during transit.
Also washing hair and putting flaps back in position. It's all "reverse
surgery." Jackie did some, Bowron did some. By the time they got done, JFK
looked pretty good. Just soaked strips of cotton gauze stuck to some
ribbons of scalp hanging out. No giant holes visible at all. And the
autopsy had yet to start formally with the Rokitansky "Y incision."
As usual, you leave something out. I've had the experience of handling
a head that had been slammed around and cracked like an egg under the
scalp.
Nobody cares about your experience.
Post by mainframetech
You know it immediately when you handle the head. You can feel
the plates under the scalp movie. Nurse Diana Bowron did NOT mention any
such wounds when asked, nor did anything open or close during her washing
of the hair. There were NO bone flaps to put back in place by anyone.
Jackie was holding the head because she saw a piece of skull and brain go
flying backward. It's why she went onto the trunk of the limo, to
retrieve it, probably in hope they could somehow put it back like a lost
finger.
The skull had to be fractured under the scalp because that is what happens
when a skull is hit by a high powered bullet. Fracture lines radiate from
the entry point and concentric fracture lines form rough perpendicular to
the radiating fractures. Did you bother to look at the video I gave you
the link to. The gelatin filled skulls fractured like eggshells into many
pieces. Since you think it is possible for a rifle bullet to penetrate
only an inch into soft tissue it's not surprising you think a rifle bullet
could pass completely through a human skull without causing massive
fracturing. You want to believe that a bullet passed completely through
the skull from front to back causing a massive blowout in the rear while
leaving the rest of the skull intact. Whatever you need to believe
happened for your theories to hold water, no matter how preposterous, you
will simply assume had to have happened. You won't for one minute stop to
think it is your theories which are FUBAR.
mainframetech
2018-04-08 02:33:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Did they explain about the flap of bone flying out? And tell me why
over 39 eyewitnesses, many with medical training, did not see the flap of
bone before Bethesda. And remember, of that group, many looked down at
the head from no more than 2 feet away, not 30-40 feet from the street
like Zapruder. Robinson actually packed the wound for burial, and Nurse
Diana Bowron handled the head while washing the hair, and they saw the
'large hole' in the BOH.
Chris
I think you answered your own question. In a skull that delicate, packing
it full of gauze may have caused pressure that pushed out a flap, either
immediately or during transit.
Also washing hair and putting flaps back in position. It's all "reverse
surgery." Jackie did some, Bowron did some. By the time they got done, JFK
looked pretty good. Just soaked strips of cotton gauze stuck to some
ribbons of scalp hanging out. No giant holes visible at all. And the
autopsy had yet to start formally with the Rokitansky "Y incision."
As usual, you leave something out. I've had the experience of handling
a head that had been slammed around and cracked like an egg under the
scalp.
Nobody cares about your experience.
Post by mainframetech
You know it immediately when you handle the head. You can feel
the plates under the scalp movie. Nurse Diana Bowron did NOT mention any
such wounds when asked, nor did anything open or close during her washing
of the hair. There were NO bone flaps to put back in place by anyone.
Jackie was holding the head because she saw a piece of skull and brain go
flying backward. It's why she went onto the trunk of the limo, to
retrieve it, probably in hope they could somehow put it back like a lost
finger.
The skull had to be fractured under the scalp because that is what happens
when a skull is hit by a high powered bullet. Fracture lines radiate from
the entry point and concentric fracture lines form rough perpendicular to
the radiating fractures.
I have no information that EVERY time a bullet hits the skull it will
fracture in such a way. Since I know that the kill shot for JFK was in
the forehead/temple area, your pretending to be an expert in this area is
wrong from the get-go. Cites and links might help you here to prove that
a bullet will ALWAYS fracture the skull in that fashion.
Post by bigdog
Did you bother to look at the video I gave you
the link to. The gelatin filled skulls fractured like eggshells into many
pieces. Since you think it is possible for a rifle bullet to penetrate
only an inch into soft tissue it's not surprising you think a rifle bullet
could pass completely through a human skull without causing massive
fracturing.
WRONG! How dumb can people get? There are a few different reasons why
a bullet may stop at the pleura, and we have proof that it did in the JFK
case. Which reason is not known to us yet, but since it DID happen, we
know it CAN happen.
Post by bigdog
You want to believe that a bullet passed completely through
the skull from front to back causing a massive blowout in the rear while
leaving the rest of the skull intact. Whatever you need to believe
happened for your theories to hold water, no matter how preposterous, you
will simply assume had to have happened. You won't for one minute stop to
think it is your theories which are FUBAR.
Tell you what. You go ahead and tell yourself that all the
eyewitnesses were wrong, and that YOU are right, and that the kill shot to
the forehead/temple area went in through the forehead and built up
pressure and blew out the BOH, and cracked the skull at the same time. I
don't mind if you think that, as long as you know that the bullet came in
at the forehead/temple and blew out the BOH. That remains the OBVIOUS
result of the a high powered bullet to the head.

Chris

Anthony Marsh
2018-04-06 14:59:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Did they explain about the flap of bone flying out? And tell me why
over 39 eyewitnesses, many with medical training, did not see the flap of
bone before Bethesda. And remember, of that group, many looked down at
the head from no more than 2 feet away, not 30-40 feet from the street
like Zapruder. Robinson actually packed the wound for burial, and Nurse
Diana Bowron handled the head while washing the hair, and they saw the
'large hole' in the BOH.
Chris
I think you answered your own question. In a skull that delicate, packing
it full of gauze may have caused pressure that pushed out a flap, either
immediately or during transit.
No. NO one said it was packet with pressure.
Post by Steve BH
Also washing hair and putting flaps back in position. It's all "reverse
surgery." Jackie did some, Bowron did some. By the time they got done, JFK
looked pretty good. Just soaked strips of cotton gauze stuck to some
ribbons of scalp hanging out. No giant holes visible at all. And the
autopsy had yet to start formally with the Rokitansky "Y incision."
bigdog
2018-04-05 02:45:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
mainframetech
2018-04-05 22:58:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 11:25:29 PM UTC-5,
This one has become one of your swamp posts and duplicating much of
what we've already covered. I'm done with it.

Chris
Jason Burke
2018-04-07 00:43:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 11:25:29 PM UTC-5,
This one has become one of your swamp posts and duplicating much of
what we've already covered. I'm done with it.
Chris
In other words, CHris, you ain't got squat.

Not that everyone didn't know that already.
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-06 14:59:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
"Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir."
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"HL: Because I have, I have reports from the morticians in Washington. So,
since you haven't read it-that's good. Because, what you're telling me is
not influenced by what I wrote already. But do you remember any
perforations in the head or did you see any holes or anything like a
bullet hole anywhere on his skull or in the back of the skull?
DB: At the back of the skull, an enormous hole.
HL: And would you-is that in the general area where that drawing- those
drawings-I'm sure you've seen them-where they've got a big piece of skull
missing in the very back of the head?
DB: Yes.
HL: Would you say that the hole's extended as far around as to be just
behind the right ear?
DB: Yes. It was more towards the right ear, definitely, then the left. But
it was, it was big. I mean, I could-and for when I did the thing, I had to
pack, you know, linens into there."
Note that the wound she describes was near to the right ear, and if you
put your right hand back behind your ear, you can feel the location she
was talking about. The hole in the BOH was close to th back part of the
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
An interesting side issue came up when I was digging up the interview
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"DB: No towel, because I washed his hair. This is what I was going to write
to you about all these autopsy photographs with all the blood clots and
everything on the back....
HL: Is there anything peculiar about those pictures?
DB: Very peculiar, very peculiar. (Very long pause as she awaits a
question.)
HL: Well, I think they're fake as hell.
DB: Definitely. Definitely. On those pages that you told me, there's three
together, top of the F 6 and F 7, and something that-all are fake
completely because I washed all the clots out of his hair before I wrapped
it up."
From: http://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/QbgORExR/nurse-diana-bowron
So she noticed the faked autopsy photos too. If they were the ones
shown to the medical panels, then that partly how they were fooled.
That's incredibly damaging to arguments against the blowout to the BOH.
The dozens of witnesses verifying each other aren't crazy or confused as
LN's try to convince people. It's a matter of trust: either the governmental
agency that stole the body to ensure an illegal autopsy (performed by an
agency of the government), or dozens of witnesses/average citizens not
under government command.
Now you have to deal with the fact not one passenger in the SSA security
car close behind the Limousine saw a BOH wound, including two top staff
members at the Whitehouse. Jackie Kennedy said the wound was on top of
the head. Stroble confirmed the large head wound was on the vertex of the
skull. Even Bowron admitted damage to the top of the head.
"Mr. SPECTER - And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to
President Kennedy's condition?
Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee
and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other
side of the car I saw the condition of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir."
With all the blood it would be very difficult to see a small entrance
wound. With the forward flaps closed she wouldn't be able to determine the
extent of the blowout with just a quick glance. That would have required a
close inspection of the head wound which nobody at Parkland did in the
brief time they were trying to save his life.
WRONG! What a crock! "with all the blood" is silly, since Nurse Diana
Bowron was specifically washing the blood off the body and the hair.
And all the while the blood kept flowing. That's why when the body reached
Bethesda the wrap around the head was soaked in blood.
Bowron said she stuffed the big hole with linens, and wrapped the head
after she had done her cleaning of the blood of the hair.
So?
It's amazing what you don't know about the body! When dead, the heart
doesn't pump, and the only blood leakage is at most a trickle,
Is that why head wrapping was soaked in blood when the body arrived at
Bethesda.
Post by mainframetech
not a
"flow" like a fire hose! The blood flow was minor, for instance the
bullet hole in the forehead/temple area didn't leak blood, since it was
usually pointing up.
It didn't flow from there because there was not bullet hole there.
You mean YOU can't see the bullet hole there.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And
that also gave her a close look at the wound in the BOH, as noted above,
and it was the only one she saw. There were no "flaps" there either at
that time.
Of course there were. We see them in the Z-film. Most of us aren't foolish
enough to dismiss that.
Well, being foolish is a talent certain people have. Are you
applying?
Did it occur to you that the Z-film was altered AFTER the phony work
on the body was done?
If I had, I would be too embarrassed to admit it.
Yup, that figures, you would avoid real evidence just to save face.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That the description of what was done to the body
was passed on AFTER it was done, so it could appear in the Z-film? As to
other people seeing the bone flap fly away, that may take care of some of
the people after they saw the Z-film, those others are simply chance.
They don't add up to over 39 witnesses though.
Aren't you forgetting that Zapruder and Newman reported what they saw on
live local TV well before the body had been returned to Washington? How
did "they" get them to describe exactly the same thing the AR described
and what we later saw in the Z-film. Had your plotters unlocked the
mystery of time travel?
WRONG! Didn't you see me mention "those others"?
Yes I did when you sidestepped what they had to say. As I recall the best
you could do was suggest they had been influenced by seeing a film that
hadn't even been developed yet.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
By handling the head, it would be OBVIOUS that there was a
breakup of parts of the head if that were true.
It is an absolute certainty that the skull broke up because that's what
happens to a skull when it is hit by a bullet fired from a high powered
rifle. That happens 100% of the time. That would have been true even if
the shot had been fired from the GK or from in front of the limo as you
have claimed.
I'm so happy for you that you believe that. Where's the proof for
that?
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=peter+cummings+jfk+skull+fractures&view=detail&mid=565781B284D2884DBF38565781B284D2884DBF38&FORM=VIRE
I went to your kooky LN site, but the first video didn't work. I'm
betting Peter Cummings, who has not been that great of an expert,
Just because he is recognized as one of the leading experts in the country
when it comes to neuropathology.
"Cummings, who works as a forensic neuropathologist for the state medical
examiner???s office, also maintains a private consulting practice.
He is frequently called as an expert witness in court cases around the
country."
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html
But you've never been impressed by people with expertise. You'd rather let
a military analyst like Doug Horne interpret the medical evidence for you.
We are impressed by Cyril Wecht and Dr. Angel.
You think they are liars.
Post by mainframetech
will say
it was just in this case, that the bullet cracked the skull, and since he
didn't know the kill shot came from the front, he would be completely
wrong.
He knew the kill shot came from behind because that was the only
possibility given the medical evidence. He didn't need a military analyst
No. The medical evidence? You mean the autopsy doctors?
So you believe in the ice bullet theory? You believe the the entrance
hole was near the EOP?
to explain what the medical evidence indicated.
"It was a single gunshot wound to the back of the head. Based on the
fracture pattern, we can say there was no shot from the side or the
front.???
???
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I've had that experience
of handling a head after the skull had been cracked in many places, and it
is immediately OBVIOUS. There were NO "flaps" at that time. The only
flap that was there on the right side over the ear was made by Humes and
Boswell at Bethesda.
Pure fantasy.
Pure OPINION.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
As Dr. Carrico explained it
quite well, the first order of business is to restore basic functions, a
heartbeat and respiration. Obviously those efforts were going to be futile
but that's what they tried to do anyway.
I know you refuse to accept it because it is incompatible with your
beliefs but the Z-film is still the best witness we have and it showed
that JFK's head was blown open all along the upper right side. It fits
perfectly with the AR which described the skull defect as being chiefly
parietal extending somewhat into the occipital and temporal regions. Since
your can't reconcile the Z-film or the AR with what you would rather
believe, you simply embrace whatever excuse you can find to dismiss both
as fraudulent. I guess when you don't want to make your beliefs fit the
evidence you are forced to try to make the evidence fit your beliefs.
WRONG! How silly of you to try and decide what I think!
That is a pretty silly thing to do. How could anybody know what and how
you think?
Post by mainframetech
I think my
thoughts usually based on the evidence, and that shows us that the flap of
bone above the right ear was not there until Bethesda, and that meant the
point where Humes and Boswell did their clandestine work on the body. So
it was created by them. Their information could well be passed on to the
CIA film alteration crew to be added to the film, making the 2 match, and
get the suckers believing the scam. There is no doubt the film was
altered.
This is a perfect example of what I just wrote. I have no idea how anybody
could arrive at such a silly conclusion. It is amazing the silly things
you will dream up to try to hold your fantasies together. So no you have
Humes and Boswell not only altering the head wound but passing it on to
the CIA so they could alter the Z-film to match what they did. So how did
they get Zapruder and Newman to describe exactly what we see in the
Z-film. The gave their accounts on live local TV within hours of the
shooting.
I answered that. At some point maybe they saw the Z-film and from then
on, they stated that there was a flap of bone. Or for a few, simply
chance. It won't equal over 39 witnesses though. And if shown on TV anywhere, it can be reproduced anywhere.
You have a real problem with timelines. Zapruder and Newman were
interviewed on live local TV shortly after the shooting and before the
Z-film was ever developed so they couldn't have been influenced by the
film or anything other then seen JFK's head explode right in front of
them.
Did they explain about the flap of bone flying out?
Zapruder described JFK's head opening up while placing his hand on the
right side of his head above his ear. Bill Newman actually thought JFK's
right ear had been blown off when in fact it had simply been covered up by
the bone flap. Exactly what we see in the Z-film.
Post by mainframetech
And tell me why
over 39 eyewitnesses, many with medical training, did not see the flap of
bone before Bethesda.
Probably because the flap had been closed. The flaps which remained
attached to the scalp had a hinge and as such could easily be returned to
their original position on the head disguising the true size and location
of the defect.
Post by mainframetech
And remember, of that group, many looked down at
the head from no more than 2 feet away, not 30-40 feet from the street
like Zapruder.
Including Dr. Carrico who described the defect as occipital-parietal.
Post by mainframetech
Robinson actually packed the wound for burial, and Nurse
Diana Bowron handled the head while washing the hair, and they saw the
'large hole' in the BOH.
Apparently they saw part of the hole.
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-05 17:02:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
"Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir."
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"HL: Because I have, I have reports from the morticians in Washington. So,
since you haven't read it-that's good. Because, what you're telling me is
not influenced by what I wrote already. But do you remember any
perforations in the head or did you see any holes or anything like a
bullet hole anywhere on his skull or in the back of the skull?
DB: At the back of the skull, an enormous hole.
HL: And would you-is that in the general area where that drawing- those
drawings-I'm sure you've seen them-where they've got a big piece of skull
missing in the very back of the head?
DB: Yes.
HL: Would you say that the hole's extended as far around as to be just
behind the right ear?
DB: Yes. It was more towards the right ear, definitely, then the left. But
it was, it was big. I mean, I could-and for when I did the thing, I had to
pack, you know, linens into there."
Note that the wound she describes was near to the right ear, and if you
put your right hand back behind your ear, you can feel the location she
was talking about. The hole in the BOH was close to th back part of the
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
An interesting side issue came up when I was digging up the interview
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"DB: No towel, because I washed his hair. This is what I was going to write
to you about all these autopsy photographs with all the blood clots and
everything on the back....
HL: Is there anything peculiar about those pictures?
DB: Very peculiar, very peculiar. (Very long pause as she awaits a
question.)
HL: Well, I think they're fake as hell.
DB: Definitely. Definitely. On those pages that you told me, there's three
together, top of the F 6 and F 7, and something that-all are fake
completely because I washed all the clots out of his hair before I wrapped
it up."
From: http://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/QbgORExR/nurse-diana-bowron
So she noticed the faked autopsy photos too. If they were the ones
shown to the medical panels, then that partly how they were fooled.
That's incredibly damaging to arguments against the blowout to the BOH.
The dozens of witnesses verifying each other aren't crazy or confused as
LN's try to convince people. It's a matter of trust: either the governmental
agency that stole the body to ensure an illegal autopsy (performed by an
agency of the government), or dozens of witnesses/average citizens not
under government command.
Now you have to deal with the fact not one passenger in the SSA security
car close behind the Limousine saw a BOH wound, including two top staff
members at the Whitehouse. Jackie Kennedy said the wound was on top of
the head. Stroble confirmed the large head wound was on the vertex of the
skull. Even Bowron admitted damage to the top of the head.
"Mr. SPECTER - And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to
President Kennedy's condition?
Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee
and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other
side of the car I saw the condition of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir."
With all the blood it would be very difficult to see a small entrance
wound. With the forward flaps closed she wouldn't be able to determine the
extent of the blowout with just a quick glance. That would have required a
close inspection of the head wound which nobody at Parkland did in the
brief time they were trying to save his life.
WRONG! What a crock! "with all the blood" is silly, since Nurse Diana
Bowron was specifically washing the blood off the body and the hair.
And all the while the blood kept flowing. That's why when the body reached
Bethesda the wrap around the head was soaked in blood.
Bowron said she stuffed the big hole with linens, and wrapped the head
after she had done her cleaning of the blood of the hair.
So?
It's amazing what you don't know about the body! When dead, the heart
doesn't pump, and the only blood leakage is at most a trickle, not a
"flow" like a fire hose! The blood flow was minor, for instance the
bullet hole in the forehead/temple area didn't leak blood, since it was
usually pointing up.
Not exactly. The head wound didn't leak because Bowron packed the wound
with gauze squares.

How come you never quote the letter from Bowron.
Martin was a real researcher and did.

Subject: Re: Those "Unreliable" Parkland Nurses 1.
Date: 27 Jun 2003 14:29:18 GMT
From: Martin Shackelford <***@concentric.net>
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk

In case the copy with the photo doesn't download properly, here's the
text without the photo:

Harrison Livingstone has granted permission for me to post the contents
of a letter from Diana Bowron, dated 24th January 1993, and which
arrived too late for inclusion in High Treason 2. He recently ran across
it again, and thought it might be of interest. The only items omitted
are several personal notes, salutations, and her married name, which she
asked not be published.

The Cover Letter:

I have enclosed two photostats of photographs which may be of help to you.

1. From the Illustrated London News dated Nov 30th 1963 showing the
arrival of the casket at Andrews Air Force Base. That is the casket in
which we placed the President's body. The colour was bronzeand according
to the people from the funeral home it was the best they had.

2. From the Hospital Highlights the news letter of the Dallas County
Hospital District, of the trauma room where Kennedy was treated. The
photograph was taken for that edition of the news letter so it shows the
room as it was at the time of the assassination. I thought it might help
with the placement or non-placement of photographs, eg. tiles, also
gurney covers which were black. As I remember all the wall tiles in the
emergency room were the same height.

I understood the last time I was in Dallas, about two years after the
assassination, that the Emergency Room was to be moved and enlarged so I
am assuming that it no longer exists in its original form.

[Note: The photostats were not enclosed, as both pictures are widely
available.]

[A copy of a JFK back photo, F5, is enclosed, indicating "This is where
I remember the wound," but adding, "This is not the back I saw." The
location is indicated on the attached copy of the photo.]

[The main statement follows:]

The following is in answer to your questions.

When the president expired everyone left the room apart from Miss
Hinchcliffe, a male orderly and myself. We tidied the room and changed the
linen on the gurney and washed the body as best we could. Miss Hinchcliffe
and the orderly left the room, but I was told to remain with the body
until the casket arrived. I was told that I had to stay because I had been
one of the people who had taken the body from the car. I remained in the
room while the widow paid her respects. After she had left I was asked, by
a man I assumed was Secret Service, to collect all pieces of skull and
brain I could find and place them in a plastic bag which he gave me. This
I did and returned the bag to him (there were only a few fragments of bone
that had stuck to the dressings and towels that we had used to pack the
hole in the back of the head). I remained in the room until the people
from the funeral home arrived. After we had placed the body in the casket
and it had been closed I was allowed to leave. During the time I was with
the body only the widow and the priest came into the room, any dealings I
had with the Secret Service were done in the doorway; no one else entered
the room and no photographs were taken.

Apart from 2-3 mins, when I left the trauma room to collect blood from
the Blood Bank, I was with the body from the car until it was placed in
the casket.

Being new to the establishment, I was assigned to Minor Medicine and
Surgery, which was across the hall from the Triage desk and the major
sections of the Emergency room. It being very quiet, there were only two
or three patients waiting for the results of tests, I was talking with the
Triage nurse when the call went up for gurneys. I grabbed a gurney in the
hall and together with an orderly ran to the entrance. I saw that the
person in the back of the car was injured so I climbed in to render what
assistance I could until such time as we could move him to a trolley, then
to the trauma room (others were assisting the Governor in the front seat).
I saw that there was a massive amount of blood on the back seat and in
order to find the cause I lifted his head and my fingers went into a large
wound in the back of his head; I turned his head and seeing the size of
the wound realized that I could not stop the bleeding. I turned his head
back and saw an entry wound in the front of the throat, I could feel no
pulse at the jugular and having seen the extent of the injury to the back
of the head I assumed that he was dead. (not my job, only a Doctor can
certify death) When we got the President to the Trauma room, word had
reached the Trauma team and they were ready with I.Vs etc. I worked with
the team, assisting where needed for about 10 mins (time is difficult to
judge in those circumstances), when I was told to go to the Blood Bank. I
was away 2-3 mins and on my return I continued to assist where needed
until the President was declared dead.

Miss Margaret Hinchcliffe and an African-American orderly and I prepared
the body for the coffin. [Marginal note: David Sanders]

I observed no strange activity of any kind and saw no bullets.

As explained above, I thought after examination in the car that he was
dead. There was no damage to the front of his face, only the gaping
wound in the back of his head and the entry wound in his throat.

When we prepared the body for the coffin we washed the face and closed the
eyes; there was no damage to the face, there was no flap of scalp on the
right, neither was there a laceration pointing toward the right eyebrow
from the scalp.

When we were preparing the body for the coffin we rolled it over in order
to remove the bloodstained sheet from underneath and to wipe away the
blood from the back of the body. I saw another entry wound in the upper
back (the other entry wound being in the front of the throat). With
reference to the photograph The Back (F5) I only saw one wound, and not
the number of wounds in the photograph; I do not think that the photo (F5)
is of the President. I have marked for you on the photostat that you sent
me where I think the entry wound was.

I first saw the large wound in the back of the head in the car; when we
were preparing the body for the coffin I had the opportunity to examine it
more closely. It was about 5ins in diameter, there was no flap of skin
covering it, just a fraction of skin along part of the edges of bone,
there was however some hair hanging down from the top of the head which
was caked with blood, and most of the brain was missing. The wound was so
large I could almost put my whole fist inside.

When we prepared the body I washed as much blood as I could from the hair;
while doing this I didnot see any other wound either in the temples or in
other parts of the head.

I did not see anything suspicious about any of the doctors, though there
were far more doctors there than they should have been; perhaps because it
was the president they all wanted to get in on the act. You must remember
that I had only been there a short time and I did not know all the
doctors, some I never saw again, but they were all known to each other.
With regard to a post: in this context I think it would refer to a
gathering of the doctors after the event, to discuss the case. This was
standard practice, when more than one or two doctors were involved.

When the body was placed in the coffin the wound at the back of the head
was packed with gauze squares and wrapped in small white sheet, there was
no terrycloth or other type of towel used.

The coffin or casket was bronze with plain fittings, as in the enclosed
photograph. [This refers to the Andrews Air Force Base photo.]

I don't think the body was removed from the coffin. After I left the
Trauma room I was in a position to see if any one entered or left the
room. No one entered or left until they removed the coffin.

A clear plastic sheet was placed in the bottom of the coffin, which may
have been a mattress cover; the body was wrapped in at the most two sheets
plus the one around the head, all the sheets were white and none had zips.
There was no "body bag".

Perhaps the following will be of interest to you.

As soon as the coffin left the trauma room, I went back to Minor Med. and
Surg. to resume my work: I don't know anything about the fight with Earl
Rose, which happened at that time.

When I arrived there I found that the patients had been moved elsewhere,
and the department had been taken over by the Vice President and his
staff. They were getting ready to leave when I got there, as they passed
me I heard the Vice President say to his wife "Make a note of what
everyone says and does".

Again I hope this is of some help to you.

[Signed] Diana Bowron



GAUZE SQUARES
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And
that also gave her a close look at the wound in the BOH, as noted above,
and it was the only one she saw. There were no "flaps" there either at
that time.
Of course there were. We see them in the Z-film. Most of us aren't foolish
enough to dismiss that.
Well, being foolish is a talent certain people have. Are you
applying?
Did it occur to you that the Z-film was altered AFTER the phony work
on the body was done?
If I had, I would be too embarrassed to admit it.
Yup, that figures, you would avoid real evidence just to save face.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That the description of what was done to the body
was passed on AFTER it was done, so it could appear in the Z-film? As to
other people seeing the bone flap fly away, that may take care of some of
the people after they saw the Z-film, those others are simply chance.
They don't add up to over 39 witnesses though.
Aren't you forgetting that Zapruder and Newman reported what they saw on
live local TV well before the body had been returned to Washington? How
did "they" get them to describe exactly the same thing the AR described
and what we later saw in the Z-film. Had your plotters unlocked the
mystery of time travel?
WRONG! Didn't you see me mention "those others"?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
By handling the head, it would be OBVIOUS that there was a
breakup of parts of the head if that were true.
It is an absolute certainty that the skull broke up because that's what
happens to a skull when it is hit by a bullet fired from a high powered
rifle. That happens 100% of the time. That would have been true even if
the shot had been fired from the GK or from in front of the limo as you
have claimed.
I'm so happy for you that you believe that. Where's the proof for
that?
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=peter+cummings+jfk+skull+fractures&view=detail&mid=565781B284D2884DBF38565781B284D2884DBF38&FORM=VIRE
I went to your kooky LN site, but the first video didn't work. I'm
betting Peter Cummings, who has not been that great of an expert, will say
it was just in this case, that the bullet cracked the skull, and since he
didn't know the kill shot came from the front, he would be completely
wrong.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I've had that experience
of handling a head after the skull had been cracked in many places, and it
is immediately OBVIOUS. There were NO "flaps" at that time. The only
flap that was there on the right side over the ear was made by Humes and
Boswell at Bethesda.
Pure fantasy.
Pure OPINION.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
As Dr. Carrico explained it
quite well, the first order of business is to restore basic functions, a
heartbeat and respiration. Obviously those efforts were going to be futile
but that's what they tried to do anyway.
I know you refuse to accept it because it is incompatible with your
beliefs but the Z-film is still the best witness we have and it showed
that JFK's head was blown open all along the upper right side. It fits
perfectly with the AR which described the skull defect as being chiefly
parietal extending somewhat into the occipital and temporal regions. Since
your can't reconcile the Z-film or the AR with what you would rather
believe, you simply embrace whatever excuse you can find to dismiss both
as fraudulent. I guess when you don't want to make your beliefs fit the
evidence you are forced to try to make the evidence fit your beliefs.
WRONG! How silly of you to try and decide what I think!
That is a pretty silly thing to do. How could anybody know what and how
you think?
Post by mainframetech
I think my
thoughts usually based on the evidence, and that shows us that the flap of
bone above the right ear was not there until Bethesda, and that meant the
point where Humes and Boswell did their clandestine work on the body. So
it was created by them. Their information could well be passed on to the
CIA film alteration crew to be added to the film, making the 2 match, and
get the suckers believing the scam. There is no doubt the film was
altered.
This is a perfect example of what I just wrote. I have no idea how anybody
could arrive at such a silly conclusion. It is amazing the silly things
you will dream up to try to hold your fantasies together. So no you have
Humes and Boswell not only altering the head wound but passing it on to
the CIA so they could alter the Z-film to match what they did. So how did
they get Zapruder and Newman to describe exactly what we see in the
Z-film. The gave their accounts on live local TV within hours of the
shooting.
I answered that. At some point maybe they saw the Z-film and from then
on, they stated that there was a flap of bone. Or for a few, simply
chance. It won't equal over 39 witnesses though. And if shown on TV anywhere, it can be reproduced anywhere.
You have a real problem with timelines. Zapruder and Newman were
interviewed on live local TV shortly after the shooting and before the
Z-film was ever developed so they couldn't have been influenced by the
film or anything other then seen JFK's head explode right in front of
them.
Did they explain about the flap of bone flying out? And tell me why
over 39 eyewitnesses, many with medical training, did not see the flap of
bone before Bethesda. And remember, of that group, many looked down at
the head from no more than 2 feet away, not 30-40 feet from the street
like Zapruder. Robinson actually packed the wound for burial, and Nurse
Diana Bowron handled the head while washing the hair, and they saw the
'large hole' in the BOH.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-04 22:29:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
"Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir."
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"HL: Because I have, I have reports from the morticians in Washington. So,
since you haven't read it-that's good. Because, what you're telling me is
not influenced by what I wrote already. But do you remember any
perforations in the head or did you see any holes or anything like a
bullet hole anywhere on his skull or in the back of the skull?
DB: At the back of the skull, an enormous hole.
HL: And would you-is that in the general area where that drawing- those
drawings-I'm sure you've seen them-where they've got a big piece of skull
missing in the very back of the head?
DB: Yes.
HL: Would you say that the hole's extended as far around as to be just
behind the right ear?
DB: Yes. It was more towards the right ear, definitely, then the left. But
it was, it was big. I mean, I could-and for when I did the thing, I had to
pack, you know, linens into there."
Note that the wound she describes was near to the right ear, and if you
put your right hand back behind your ear, you can feel the location she
was talking about. The hole in the BOH was close to th back part of the
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
An interesting side issue came up when I was digging up the interview
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"DB: No towel, because I washed his hair. This is what I was going to write
to you about all these autopsy photographs with all the blood clots and
everything on the back....
HL: Is there anything peculiar about those pictures?
DB: Very peculiar, very peculiar. (Very long pause as she awaits a
question.)
HL: Well, I think they're fake as hell.
DB: Definitely. Definitely. On those pages that you told me, there's three
together, top of the F 6 and F 7, and something that-all are fake
completely because I washed all the clots out of his hair before I wrapped
it up."
From: http://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/QbgORExR/nurse-diana-bowron
So she noticed the faked autopsy photos too. If they were the ones
shown to the medical panels, then that partly how they were fooled.
That's incredibly damaging to arguments against the blowout to the BOH.
The dozens of witnesses verifying each other aren't crazy or confused as
LN's try to convince people. It's a matter of trust: either the governmental
agency that stole the body to ensure an illegal autopsy (performed by an
agency of the government), or dozens of witnesses/average citizens not
under government command.
Now you have to deal with the fact not one passenger in the SSA security
car close behind the Limousine saw a BOH wound, including two top staff
members at the Whitehouse. Jackie Kennedy said the wound was on top of
the head. Stroble confirmed the large head wound was on the vertex of the
skull. Even Bowron admitted damage to the top of the head.
"Mr. SPECTER - And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to
President Kennedy's condition?
Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee
and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other
side of the car I saw the condition of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir."
With all the blood it would be very difficult to see a small entrance
wound. With the forward flaps closed she wouldn't be able to determine the
extent of the blowout with just a quick glance. That would have required a
close inspection of the head wound which nobody at Parkland did in the
brief time they were trying to save his life.
WRONG! What a crock! "with all the blood" is silly, since Nurse Diana
Bowron was specifically washing the blood off the body and the hair.
And all the while the blood kept flowing. That's why when the body reached
Bethesda the wrap around the head was soaked in blood.
Bowron said she stuffed the big hole with linens, and wrapped the head
after she had done her cleaning of the blood of the hair.
So?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And
that also gave her a close look at the wound in the BOH, as noted above,
and it was the only one she saw. There were no "flaps" there either at
that time.
Of course there were. We see them in the Z-film. Most of us aren't foolish
enough to dismiss that.
Well, being foolish is a talent certain people have. Are you
applying?
Did it occur to you that the Z-film was altered AFTER the phony work
on the body was done?
If I had, I would be too embarrassed to admit it.
Post by mainframetech
That the description of what was done to the body
was passed on AFTER it was done, so it could appear in the Z-film? As to
other people seeing the bone flap fly away, that may take care of some of
the people after they saw the Z-film, those others are simply chance.
They don't add up to over 39 witnesses though.
Aren't you forgetting that Zapruder and Newman reported what they saw on
live local TV well before the body had been returned to Washington? How
did "they" get them to describe exactly the same thing the AR described
and what we later saw in the Z-film. Had your plotters unlocked the
mystery of time travel?
False. Zapruder and Newman did not see the back wound or the throat
wound. Are you ONLY talking about the head wound?

Zapruder said JFK's head exploded.
Is that what the autopsy said?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
By handling the head, it would be OBVIOUS that there was a
breakup of parts of the head if that were true.
It is an absolute certainty that the skull broke up because that's what
happens to a skull when it is hit by a bullet fired from a high powered
rifle. That happens 100% of the time. That would have been true even if
the shot had been fired from the GK or from in front of the limo as you
have claimed.
I'm so happy for you that you believe that. Where's the proof for
that?
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=peter+cummings+jfk+skull+fractures&view=detail&mid=565781B284D2884DBF38565781B284D2884DBF38&FORM=VIRE
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I've had that experience
of handling a head after the skull had been cracked in many places, and it
is immediately OBVIOUS. There were NO "flaps" at that time. The only
flap that was there on the right side over the ear was made by Humes and
Boswell at Bethesda.
Pure fantasy.
Pure OPINION.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
As Dr. Carrico explained it
quite well, the first order of business is to restore basic functions, a
heartbeat and respiration. Obviously those efforts were going to be futile
but that's what they tried to do anyway.
I know you refuse to accept it because it is incompatible with your
beliefs but the Z-film is still the best witness we have and it showed
that JFK's head was blown open all along the upper right side. It fits
perfectly with the AR which described the skull defect as being chiefly
parietal extending somewhat into the occipital and temporal regions. Since
your can't reconcile the Z-film or the AR with what you would rather
believe, you simply embrace whatever excuse you can find to dismiss both
as fraudulent. I guess when you don't want to make your beliefs fit the
evidence you are forced to try to make the evidence fit your beliefs.
WRONG! How silly of you to try and decide what I think!
That is a pretty silly thing to do. How could anybody know what and how
you think?
Post by mainframetech
I think my
thoughts usually based on the evidence, and that shows us that the flap of
bone above the right ear was not there until Bethesda, and that meant the
point where Humes and Boswell did their clandestine work on the body. So
it was created by them. Their information could well be passed on to the
CIA film alteration crew to be added to the film, making the 2 match, and
get the suckers believing the scam. There is no doubt the film was
altered.
This is a perfect example of what I just wrote. I have no idea how anybody
could arrive at such a silly conclusion. It is amazing the silly things
you will dream up to try to hold your fantasies together. So no you have
Humes and Boswell not only altering the head wound but passing it on to
the CIA so they could alter the Z-film to match what they did. So how did
they get Zapruder and Newman to describe exactly what we see in the
Z-film. The gave their accounts on live local TV within hours of the
shooting.
I anwered that. At some point maybe they saw the Z-film and from then
on, they stated that there was a flap of bone. Or for a few, simply
chance. It won't equal over 39 witnesses though.
You have a real problem with timelines. Zapruder and Newman were
interviewed on live local TV shortly after the shooting and before the
Z-film was ever developed so they couldn't have been influenced by the
film or anything other then seen JFK's head explode right in front of
them.
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-03 00:39:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
"Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir."
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"HL: Because I have, I have reports from the morticians in Washington. So,
since you haven't read it-that's good. Because, what you're telling me is
not influenced by what I wrote already. But do you remember any
perforations in the head or did you see any holes or anything like a
bullet hole anywhere on his skull or in the back of the skull?
DB: At the back of the skull, an enormous hole.
HL: And would you-is that in the general area where that drawing- those
drawings-I'm sure you've seen them-where they've got a big piece of skull
missing in the very back of the head?
DB: Yes.
HL: Would you say that the hole's extended as far around as to be just
behind the right ear?
DB: Yes. It was more towards the right ear, definitely, then the left. But
it was, it was big. I mean, I could-and for when I did the thing, I had to
pack, you know, linens into there."
Note that the wound she describes was near to the right ear, and if you
put your right hand back behind your ear, you can feel the location she
was talking about. The hole in the BOH was close to th back part of the
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
An interesting side issue came up when I was digging up the interview
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"DB: No towel, because I washed his hair. This is what I was going to write
to you about all these autopsy photographs with all the blood clots and
everything on the back....
HL: Is there anything peculiar about those pictures?
DB: Very peculiar, very peculiar. (Very long pause as she awaits a
question.)
HL: Well, I think they're fake as hell.
DB: Definitely. Definitely. On those pages that you told me, there's three
together, top of the F 6 and F 7, and something that-all are fake
completely because I washed all the clots out of his hair before I wrapped
it up."
From: http://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/QbgORExR/nurse-diana-bowron
So she noticed the faked autopsy photos too. If they were the ones
shown to the medical panels, then that partly how they were fooled.
That's incredibly damaging to arguments against the blowout to the BOH.
The dozens of witnesses verifying each other aren't crazy or confused as
LN's try to convince people. It's a matter of trust: either the governmental
agency that stole the body to ensure an illegal autopsy (performed by an
agency of the government), or dozens of witnesses/average citizens not
under government command.
Now you have to deal with the fact not one passenger in the SSA security
car close behind the Limousine saw a BOH wound, including two top staff
members at the Whitehouse. Jackie Kennedy said the wound was on top of
the head. Stroble confirmed the large head wound was on the vertex of the
skull. Even Bowron admitted damage to the top of the head.
"Mr. SPECTER - And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to
President Kennedy's condition?
Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee
and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other
side of the car I saw the condition of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir."
With all the blood it would be very difficult to see a small entrance
wound. With the forward flaps closed she wouldn't be able to determine the
extent of the blowout with just a quick glance. That would have required a
close inspection of the head wound which nobody at Parkland did in the
brief time they were trying to save his life.
WRONG! What a crock! "with all the blood" is silly, since Nurse Diana
Bowron was specifically washing the blood off the body and the hair.
And all the while the blood kept flowing. That's why when the body reached
Bethesda the wrap around the head was soaked in blood.
Bowron said she stuffed the big hole with linens, and wrapped the head
after she had done her cleaning of the blood of the hair.
Not exactly. Gauze squares. When Humes saw the gauze squares packed into
the head wound he ASSuMEd that they were left over from the surgery done
in Parkland Hospital.
No, he's a tough question for you so if you are a WC defender please do
not try to answer it:
Does the human brain have any right angles?
When you look at the autopsy photos you can see a right angle sticking
out. So do you ASSuME that is brain tissue? Is there any autopsy doctor
stupid enough that he would ASSuME that is brain tissue?
At least Humes instantly knew it was gauze squares, not brain tissue.
But is there any WC defender as smart as Humes?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And
that also gave her a close look at the wound in the BOH, as noted above,
and it was the only one she saw. There were no "flaps" there either at
that time.
Of course there were. We see them in the Z-film. Most of us aren't foolish
enough to dismiss that.
Well, being foolish is a talent certain people have. Are you
applying?
Did it occur to you that the Z-film was altered AFTER the phony work
on the body was done? That the description of what was done to the body
Well, as an alterationist why don't you say it was done at the SAME
TIME. Maybe the CIA had video conferencing back then.
Post by mainframetech
was passed on AFTER it was done, so it could appear in the Z-film? As to
The condition of the body was not the same when the body arrived for the
autopsy as when it was in the limo and seen on the Zapruder film. What you
should do is claim that the alterations were done at Parkland in secret.
You are such an amateur at this alterationism nonsense.
Post by mainframetech
other people seeing the bone flap fly away, that may take care of some of
Fly away? You mean the one which remained attached? You keep misusing words.
Post by mainframetech
the people after they saw the Z-film, those others are simply chance.
They don't add up to over 39 witnesses though.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
By handling the head, it would be OBVIOUS that there was a
breakup of parts of the head if that were true.
It is an absolute certainty that the skull broke up because that's what
happens to a skull when it is hit by a bullet fired from a high powered
rifle. That happens 100% of the time. That would have been true even if
Define your terms. How high powered? The Carcano is not high powered.
Are you endorsing the Donahue Theory?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
the shot had been fired from the GK or from in front of the limo as you
have claimed.
I'm so happy for you that you believe that. Where's the proof for
that?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I've had that experience
of handling a head after the skull had been cracked in many places, and it
is immediately OBVIOUS. There were NO "flaps" at that time. The only
flap that was there on the right side over the ear was made by Humes and
Boswell at Bethesda.
Pure fantasy.
Pure OPINION.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
As Dr. Carrico explained it
quite well, the first order of business is to restore basic functions, a
heartbeat and respiration. Obviously those efforts were going to be futile
but that's what they tried to do anyway.
I know you refuse to accept it because it is incompatible with your
beliefs but the Z-film is still the best witness we have and it showed
that JFK's head was blown open all along the upper right side. It fits
perfectly with the AR which described the skull defect as being chiefly
parietal extending somewhat into the occipital and temporal regions. Since
your can't reconcile the Z-film or the AR with what you would rather
believe, you simply embrace whatever excuse you can find to dismiss both
as fraudulent. I guess when you don't want to make your beliefs fit the
evidence you are forced to try to make the evidence fit your beliefs.
WRONG! How silly of you to try and decide what I think!
That is a pretty silly thing to do. How could anybody know what and how
you think?
Post by mainframetech
I think my
thoughts usually based on the evidence, and that shows us that the flap of
bone above the right ear was not there until Bethesda, and that meant the
point where Humes and Boswell did their clandestine work on the body. So
it was created by them. Their information could well be passed on to the
CIA film alteration crew to be added to the film, making the 2 match, and
get the suckers believing the scam. There is no doubt the film was
altered.
This is a perfect example of what I just wrote. I have no idea how anybody
could arrive at such a silly conclusion. It is amazing the silly things
you will dream up to try to hold your fantasies together. So no you have
Humes and Boswell not only altering the head wound but passing it on to
the CIA so they could alter the Z-film to match what they did. So how did
they get Zapruder and Newman to describe exactly what we see in the
Z-film. The gave their accounts on live local TV within hours of the
shooting.
I anwered that. At some point maybe they saw the Z-film and from then
on, they stated that there was a flap of bone. Or for a few, simply
chance. It won't equal over 39 witnesses though.
The autopsy doctors? They didn't need to view the Zapruder film to be able
to see the flap of skull sticking out. It was photographed during the
autopsy. How can the autopsy doctors watch the Zapruder film which you
think was being altered in the secret lab in NY while they were doing the
autopsy in Washington? Was there a TV in the autopsy room? Did the CIA
have video conferencing in 1963?
Post by mainframetech
Chris
Steve BH
2018-04-03 18:49:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Not exactly. Gauze squares. When Humes saw the gauze squares packed into
the head wound he ASSuMEd that they were left over from the surgery done
in Parkland Hospital.
No, he's a tough question for you so if you are a WC defender please do
Does the human brain have any right angles?
When you look at the autopsy photos you can see a right angle sticking
out. So do you ASSuME that is brain tissue? Is there any autopsy doctor
stupid enough that he would ASSuME that is brain tissue?
At least Humes instantly knew it was gauze squares, not brain tissue.
But is there any WC defender as smart as Humes?
Sure, I'm as smart as Humes. Or your next guy. And have done and seen
autopsies, and have handloaded and fired more types of pistols and
high-powered rifles than you've probably ever _seen_.

So-- FYI:

If you take the human body and subject it to outside mechanical forces,
like get the scalp caught in a rapidly rotating wheel of machinery, it
will not only tear the scalp off, but you'll see some triangular flaps of
bone. They are not gauze.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4736888/

These triangular skull fractures were also seen in the Aberdeen tests of
the Carcano, although they didn't use fresh skulls. You can see a scalp
evulsion in JFK himself, over his right eye. And from the 3/4 high angle
you can see the triangular scalp flap that fit into it.

You wanna see triangular flaps? Google "Kronlein shot." That's what
happens when a firearm impulse blows the brains out of the inside of the
skull, and you see scalp flap damage from inside pressure. Lots of right
angles. Look closely, my friend. No surgery has been done, as these people
are dead, dead, dead.

https://www.documentingreality.com/forum/f10/kr-nlein-shots-156314/
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-04-04 02:03:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
Post by Anthony Marsh
Not exactly. Gauze squares. When Humes saw the gauze squares packed into
the head wound he ASSuMEd that they were left over from the surgery done
in Parkland Hospital.
No, he's a tough question for you so if you are a WC defender please do
Does the human brain have any right angles?
When you look at the autopsy photos you can see a right angle sticking
out. So do you ASSuME that is brain tissue? Is there any autopsy doctor
stupid enough that he would ASSuME that is brain tissue?
At least Humes instantly knew it was gauze squares, not brain tissue.
But is there any WC defender as smart as Humes?
Sure, I'm as smart as Humes. Or your next guy. And have done and seen
autopsies, and have handloaded and fired more types of pistols and
high-powered rifles than you've probably ever _seen_.
If you take the human body and subject it to outside mechanical forces,
like get the scalp caught in a rapidly rotating wheel of machinery, it
will not only tear the scalp off, but you'll see some triangular flaps of
bone. They are not gauze.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4736888/
These triangular skull fractures were also seen in the Aberdeen tests of
the Carcano, although they didn't use fresh skulls. You can see a scalp
evulsion in JFK himself, over his right eye. And from the 3/4 high angle
you can see the triangular scalp flap that fit into it.
You wanna see triangular flaps? Google "Kronlein shot." That's what
happens when a firearm impulse blows the brains out of the inside of the
skull, and you see scalp flap damage from inside pressure. Lots of right
angles. Look closely, my friend. No surgery has been done, as these people
are dead, dead, dead.
https://www.documentingreality.com/forum/f10/kr-nlein-shots-156314/
So you wouldn't perform surgery on JFK's head during a "pre-autopsy
autopsy" to hide/alter the wounds and THEN during the "real" autopsy
mention the secret surgery you just performed?

You'd make a lousy conspiracist because that is exactly what these people
claim.

And one more: Sibert and O'Neill were in on the whole conspiracy but
decided, what the heck, to reveal the secret surgery that was done. The
one that was supposed to be kept secret. Yes, that one.
mainframetech
2018-04-05 02:52:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve BH
Post by Anthony Marsh
Not exactly. Gauze squares. When Humes saw the gauze squares packed into
the head wound he ASSuMEd that they were left over from the surgery done
in Parkland Hospital.
No, he's a tough question for you so if you are a WC defender please do
Does the human brain have any right angles?
When you look at the autopsy photos you can see a right angle sticking
out. So do you ASSuME that is brain tissue? Is there any autopsy doctor
stupid enough that he would ASSuME that is brain tissue?
At least Humes instantly knew it was gauze squares, not brain tissue.
But is there any WC defender as smart as Humes?
Sure, I'm as smart as Humes. Or your next guy. And have done and seen
autopsies, and have handloaded and fired more types of pistols and
high-powered rifles than you've probably ever _seen_.
If you take the human body and subject it to outside mechanical forces,
like get the scalp caught in a rapidly rotating wheel of machinery, it
will not only tear the scalp off, but you'll see some triangular flaps of
bone. They are not gauze.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4736888/
These triangular skull fractures were also seen in the Aberdeen tests of
the Carcano, although they didn't use fresh skulls. You can see a scalp
evulsion in JFK himself, over his right eye. And from the 3/4 high angle
you can see the triangular scalp flap that fit into it.
You wanna see triangular flaps? Google "Kronlein shot." That's what
happens when a firearm impulse blows the brains out of the inside of the
skull, and you see scalp flap damage from inside pressure. Lots of right
angles. Look closely, my friend. No surgery has been done, as these people
are dead, dead, dead.
https://www.documentingreality.com/forum/f10/kr-nlein-shots-156314/
So you wouldn't perform surgery on JFK's head during a "pre-autopsy
autopsy" to hide/alter the wounds and THEN during the "real" autopsy
mention the secret surgery you just performed?
You'd make a lousy conspiracist because that is exactly what these people
claim.
And one more: Sibert and O'Neill were in on the whole conspiracy but
decided, what the heck, to reveal the secret surgery that was done. The
one that was supposed to be kept secret. Yes, that one.
Sibert and O'Neill were NOT in on the plot to kill JFK. And Humes
did indeed make a semi-humorous comment about the brain falling out into
his hands, as if he didn't know why that should be. No one commented, but
the gallery wasn't full of medical people, and the prosectors had orders
to find certain things. It may not have been general knowledge that you
had to sever the spinal cord to get the brain out, and the optic nerves,
and various arteries and veins. That proved that the body had work done
earlier, but it wasn't done at Parkland, so the only time it could have
been done was in the 42 minutes that the body was in the morgue BEFORE the
family and agents had arrived.

Chris
bigdog
2018-04-05 22:55:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve BH
Post by Anthony Marsh
Not exactly. Gauze squares. When Humes saw the gauze squares packed into
the head wound he ASSuMEd that they were left over from the surgery done
in Parkland Hospital.
No, he's a tough question for you so if you are a WC defender please do
Does the human brain have any right angles?
When you look at the autopsy photos you can see a right angle sticking
out. So do you ASSuME that is brain tissue? Is there any autopsy doctor
stupid enough that he would ASSuME that is brain tissue?
At least Humes instantly knew it was gauze squares, not brain tissue.
But is there any WC defender as smart as Humes?
Sure, I'm as smart as Humes. Or your next guy. And have done and seen
autopsies, and have handloaded and fired more types of pistols and
high-powered rifles than you've probably ever _seen_.
If you take the human body and subject it to outside mechanical forces,
like get the scalp caught in a rapidly rotating wheel of machinery, it
will not only tear the scalp off, but you'll see some triangular flaps of
bone. They are not gauze.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4736888/
These triangular skull fractures were also seen in the Aberdeen tests of
the Carcano, although they didn't use fresh skulls. You can see a scalp
evulsion in JFK himself, over his right eye. And from the 3/4 high angle
you can see the triangular scalp flap that fit into it.
You wanna see triangular flaps? Google "Kronlein shot." That's what
happens when a firearm impulse blows the brains out of the inside of the
skull, and you see scalp flap damage from inside pressure. Lots of right
angles. Look closely, my friend. No surgery has been done, as these people
are dead, dead, dead.
https://www.documentingreality.com/forum/f10/kr-nlein-shots-156314/
So you wouldn't perform surgery on JFK's head during a "pre-autopsy
autopsy" to hide/alter the wounds and THEN during the "real" autopsy
mention the secret surgery you just performed?
You'd make a lousy conspiracist because that is exactly what these people
claim.
And one more: Sibert and O'Neill were in on the whole conspiracy but
decided, what the heck, to reveal the secret surgery that was done. The
one that was supposed to be kept secret. Yes, that one.
Sibert and O'Neill were NOT in on the plot to kill JFK. And Humes
did indeed make a semi-humorous comment about the brain falling out into
his hands, as if he didn't know why that should be.
I guess you thinking the pathologists were yucking it up while performing
an autopsy on a slain president is no more ridiculous than the other crap
you have dreamed up.
Post by mainframetech
No one commented, but
the gallery wasn't full of medical people, and the prosectors had orders
to find certain things.
That's another of the goofy things you have convinced yourself of.
Post by mainframetech
It may not have been general knowledge that you
had to sever the spinal cord to get the brain out, and the optic nerves,
and various arteries and veins. That proved that the body had work done
earlier, but it wasn't done at Parkland, so the only time it could have
been done was in the 42 minutes that the body was in the morgue BEFORE the
family and agents had arrived.
And still another.
Post by mainframetech
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-05 23:39:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve BH
Post by Anthony Marsh
Not exactly. Gauze squares. When Humes saw the gauze squares packed into
the head wound he ASSuMEd that they were left over from the surgery done
in Parkland Hospital.
No, he's a tough question for you so if you are a WC defender please do
Does the human brain have any right angles?
When you look at the autopsy photos you can see a right angle sticking
out. So do you ASSuME that is brain tissue? Is there any autopsy doctor
stupid enough that he would ASSuME that is brain tissue?
At least Humes instantly knew it was gauze squares, not brain tissue.
But is there any WC defender as smart as Humes?
Sure, I'm as smart as Humes. Or your next guy. And have done and seen
autopsies, and have handloaded and fired more types of pistols and
high-powered rifles than you've probably ever _seen_.
If you take the human body and subject it to outside mechanical forces,
like get the scalp caught in a rapidly rotating wheel of machinery, it
will not only tear the scalp off, but you'll see some triangular flaps of
bone. They are not gauze.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4736888/
These triangular skull fractures were also seen in the Aberdeen tests of
the Carcano, although they didn't use fresh skulls. You can see a scalp
evulsion in JFK himself, over his right eye. And from the 3/4 high angle
you can see the triangular scalp flap that fit into it.
You wanna see triangular flaps? Google "Kronlein shot." That's what
happens when a firearm impulse blows the brains out of the inside of the
skull, and you see scalp flap damage from inside pressure. Lots of right
angles. Look closely, my friend. No surgery has been done, as these people
are dead, dead, dead.
https://www.documentingreality.com/forum/f10/kr-nlein-shots-156314/
So you wouldn't perform surgery on JFK's head during a "pre-autopsy
autopsy" to hide/alter the wounds and THEN during the "real" autopsy
mention the secret surgery you just performed?
You'd make a lousy conspiracist because that is exactly what these people
claim.
And one more: Sibert and O'Neill were in on the whole conspiracy but
decided, what the heck, to reveal the secret surgery that was done. The
one that was supposed to be kept secret. Yes, that one.
Sibert and O'Neill were NOT in on the plot to kill JFK. And Humes
did indeed make a semi-humorous comment about the brain falling out into
his hands, as if he didn't know why that should be. No one commented, but
That incident happened when they unwrapped the head and pieces of skull
fell down.
Post by mainframetech
the gallery wasn't full of medical people, and the prosectors had orders
to find certain things. It may not have been general knowledge that you
had to sever the spinal cord to get the brain out, and the optic nerves,
and various arteries and veins. That proved that the body had work done
earlier, but it wasn't done at Parkland, so the only time it could have
been done was in the 42 minutes that the body was in the morgue BEFORE the
family and agents had arrived.
Humes testified that he did that DURING the autopsy.
Post by mainframetech
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-05 03:07:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve BH
Post by Anthony Marsh
Not exactly. Gauze squares. When Humes saw the gauze squares packed into
the head wound he ASSuMEd that they were left over from the surgery done
in Parkland Hospital.
No, he's a tough question for you so if you are a WC defender please do
Does the human brain have any right angles?
When you look at the autopsy photos you can see a right angle sticking
out. So do you ASSuME that is brain tissue? Is there any autopsy doctor
stupid enough that he would ASSuME that is brain tissue?
At least Humes instantly knew it was gauze squares, not brain tissue.
But is there any WC defender as smart as Humes?
Sure, I'm as smart as Humes. Or your next guy. And have done and seen
autopsies, and have handloaded and fired more types of pistols and
high-powered rifles than you've probably ever _seen_.
If you take the human body and subject it to outside mechanical forces,
like get the scalp caught in a rapidly rotating wheel of machinery, it
will not only tear the scalp off, but you'll see some triangular flaps of
bone. They are not gauze.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4736888/
These triangular skull fractures were also seen in the Aberdeen tests of
the Carcano, although they didn't use fresh skulls. You can see a scalp
evulsion in JFK himself, over his right eye. And from the 3/4 high angle
you can see the triangular scalp flap that fit into it.
You wanna see triangular flaps? Google "Kronlein shot." That's what
happens when a firearm impulse blows the brains out of the inside of the
skull, and you see scalp flap damage from inside pressure. Lots of right
angles. Look closely, my friend. No surgery has been done, as these people
are dead, dead, dead.
https://www.documentingreality.com/forum/f10/kr-nlein-shots-156314/
So you wouldn't perform surgery on JFK's head during a "pre-autopsy
autopsy" to hide/alter the wounds and THEN during the "real" autopsy
mention the secret surgery you just performed?
No, I wouldn't. It makes no sense. That is my point about
alterationists. They make no sense.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
You'd make a lousy conspiracist because that is exactly what these people
claim.
And one more: Sibert and O'Neill were in on the whole conspiracy but
decided, what the heck, to reveal the secret surgery that was done. The
one that was supposed to be kept secret. Yes, that one.
I have never aspired to be an alterationist. I attack them.
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-04 22:25:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
Post by Anthony Marsh
Not exactly. Gauze squares. When Humes saw the gauze squares packed into
the head wound he ASSuMEd that they were left over from the surgery done
in Parkland Hospital.
No, he's a tough question for you so if you are a WC defender please do
Does the human brain have any right angles?
When you look at the autopsy photos you can see a right angle sticking
out. So do you ASSuME that is brain tissue? Is there any autopsy doctor
stupid enough that he would ASSuME that is brain tissue?
At least Humes instantly knew it was gauze squares, not brain tissue.
But is there any WC defender as smart as Humes?
Sure, I'm as smart as Humes. Or your next guy. And have done and seen
So you are admitting that you aren't very smart because Humes wasn't very
smart. So you believe in ice bullets? The point was that no matter how
stupid Humes was at least he instantly saw and recognized the gauze
squares packed into the top of head and assumed that they were left over
from surgery done at Parkland. Are you smart enough to understand that?
BTW, I am not impressed by your bragging. You can't back it up.
Post by Steve BH
autopsies, and have handloaded and fired more types of pistols and
high-powered rifles than you've probably ever _seen_.
Again, the Carcano was not a high-powered rifle.
Again, tell me what high-powered rifle you think was fired in Dealey Plaza.

<crickets>
You have no standing or qualifications to be lecturing me.
Post by Steve BH
If you take the human body and subject it to outside mechanical forces,
like get the scalp caught in a rapidly rotating wheel of machinery, it
will not only tear the scalp off, but you'll see some triangular flaps of
bone. They are not gauze.
Irrelevant to THIS case.
That is not bone sticking out. Bowron packed gauze squares into the head
wound.
Post by Steve BH
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4736888/
These triangular skull fractures were also seen in the Aberdeen tests of
the Carcano, although they didn't use fresh skulls. You can see a scalp
Not skull. You keep bring up irrelevant things. You think Humes was not
smart enough to know the difference between bone and gauze? And you say
you are as smart as Humes. Do you really want to admit that?

So, if you think it is bone, which bone was it?
Do you SEE that bone sticking out there in the Zapruder film?
Which frame?

Now they see why you can't answer my questions.
Post by Steve BH
evulsion in JFK himself, over his right eye. And from the 3/4 high angle
you can see the triangular scalp flap that fit into it.
No, show me what you think you see.
Post by Steve BH
You wanna see triangular flaps? Google "Kronlein shot." That's what
happens when a firearm impulse blows the brains out of the inside of the
skull, and you see scalp flap damage from inside pressure. Lots of right
angles. Look closely, my friend. No surgery has been done, as these people
are dead, dead, dead.
https://www.documentingreality.com/forum/f10/kr-nlein-shots-156314/
Again, irrelevant to THIS case.
Your point about no surgery is silly. The alterationist theory is that
surgery was done on the dead President. Humes thought that Parkland had
done surgery on the head, so he called them and they said that no they
had not done any surgery on the head.
You need to get up to speed here.

Loading Image...

GAUZE
Not BONE
Steve BH
2018-04-05 19:54:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve BH
Post by Anthony Marsh
Not exactly. Gauze squares. When Humes saw the gauze squares packed into
the head wound he ASSuMEd that they were left over from the surgery done
in Parkland Hospital.
No, he's a tough question for you so if you are a WC defender please do
Does the human brain have any right angles?
When you look at the autopsy photos you can see a right angle sticking
out. So do you ASSuME that is brain tissue? Is there any autopsy doctor
stupid enough that he would ASSuME that is brain tissue?
At least Humes instantly knew it was gauze squares, not brain tissue.
But is there any WC defender as smart as Humes?
Sure, I'm as smart as Humes. Or your next guy. And have done and seen
So you are admitting that you aren't very smart because Humes wasn't very
smart. So you believe in ice bullets? The point was that no matter how
stupid Humes was at least he instantly saw and recognized the gauze
squares packed into the top of head and assumed that they were left over
from surgery done at Parkland. Are you smart enough to understand that?
BTW, I am not impressed by your bragging. You can't back it up.
Post by Steve BH
autopsies, and have handloaded and fired more types of pistols and
high-powered rifles than you've probably ever _seen_.
Again, the Carcano was not a high-powered rifle.
Although the term "high powered rifle" is not well-defined, any shooter
would agree that the Carcano firing military rounds qualifies. It has/had
twice the momentum and kick as the M-16, and a muzzle energy 22% higher.
The M-16 is a high powered rifle. Most soldiers do not want to go to war
with anything else. Basically, if you can hunt deer with it comfortably,
it's high-powered. The energy and velocity of the Carcano and the .30-30
Winchester are essentially identical, and the Carcano is more accurate and
fires a flatter ballistic arc, due to considerably better ballistic
coefficient bullet.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Again, tell me what high-powered rifle you think was fired in Dealey Plaza.
<crickets>
No crickets here. Oswald's Carcano qualifies nicely. It could penetrate 3
feet of pine, which no .30-30 can do.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You have no standing or qualifications to be lecturing me.
Actually I do, but never mind. I don't give a shit.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve BH
If you take the human body and subject it to outside mechanical forces,
like get the scalp caught in a rapidly rotating wheel of machinery, it
will not only tear the scalp off, but you'll see some triangular flaps of
bone. They are not gauze.
Irrelevant to THIS case.
No, it isn't. You asked by triangular flaps of bone and scalp. They are
are known to be produced by bullet explosions after they encounter human
heads. End of story.
Post by Anthony Marsh
That is not bone sticking out. Bowron packed gauze squares into the head
wound.
Depends on what you are talking about. The "devil's ear" triangular piece
the juts out above (cranially to) JFK's right ear, IS both bone and scalp.
It is between ear and vertex of the head. It's not gauze. In the 3/4 view
from the right you can see another shallower triangular piece taken out of
the forehead above the president's right eye, and can see the flap above
it that was pulled up to do it (at the base of this is the "hole" that
some see, but it's probably just a dark place where you are looking deeper
into the head, as there is no skull under it.)

The devil's ear is both skull AND scalp, and you can see it, if you look
closely, in F8, the view into the interior of the skull. As well as a bit
of JFK's ear, which you can recognize if you've been staring at these long
enough. F8, BTW, is not oriented correctly in most illustrations. The
ruler is UNDER the photo. This allows the reflection of the rim of the
glass specimen container to be oriented so that it is upright and nothing
would be pouring out of it. <g>

I happen to believe that F8 is looking at FJK's skull from the rear. That
is a giant crack in the back of his skull, not the front of it. Still,
most of the wound is above the ear, not in the rear.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve BH
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4736888/
These triangular skull fractures were also seen in the Aberdeen tests of
the Carcano, although they didn't use fresh skulls. You can see a scalp
Not skull. You keep bring up irrelevant things. You think Humes was not
smart enough to know the difference between bone and gauze? And you say
you are as smart as Humes. Do you really want to admit that?
Humes was not talking about gauze in looking at bone flap. You can see
guaze, I think, in the vertex shot of JFK looking straight down at the top
of his head. Just to right of midline is some ropy-looking material inside
the head that people have assumed is cerebral convolution. I think it's
gauze.
Post by Anthony Marsh
So, if you think it is bone, which bone was it?
Some fragment of the parietal bone above the ear.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Do you SEE that bone sticking out there in the Zapruder film?
Which frame?
The Z-film is not high res enough to show you things like that.

There is a yellow-white object that appears attached to scalp in front of
JFK's right ear (not "above it" or anatomically cranial, but anatomically
anterior-- over his face). It is very irregular, and is probably a really
large plate of parietal skull. You see it well in 333, 335 and 355. It's
not Jackie's white gloved left hand, as we see them both in Z-330, and
this is part of the president's head. It is well forward of anything seen
in the autopsy photos-- and again is mostly over the face, judging by how
forward of the ear-ear line it is. There is a large (10 cm) fragment
X-Rayed (along with two far smaller ones) in 7HSCA721 fig 126. It's not
the Harper fragment, but a big piece of the skull found under the Connally
jumpseat from which it probably rebounded.

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/frags/bone_frags.htm

As for JFK's scalp, it's very far forward in the Z film, and clearly has
been pushed back by Ms K and others before the autopsy photos. In Z-335
you can see a mist of brown that partly hides Jackie's pink upper left
arm! That's hair! It's not hair in motion with regard to JFK because you
see it in frame after frame. And it's not blood because the arm before and
after moves behind it, then out of its way. It's scalp with attached brown
hair, which you can see THROUGH in Z-335.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Now they see why you can't answer my questions.
Post by Steve BH
evulsion in JFK himself, over his right eye. And from the 3/4 high angle
you can see the triangular scalp flap that fit into it.
No, show me what you think you see.
No, they don't allow us to post photos in his forum. Look at it yourself.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve BH
You wanna see triangular flaps? Google "Kronlein shot." [Umlaut o = Kroenlein shot] That's what
happens when a firearm impulse blows the brains out of the inside of the
skull, and you see scalp flap damage from inside pressure. Lots of right
angles. Look closely, my friend. No surgery has been done, as these people
are dead, dead, dead.
https://www.documentingreality.com/forum/f10/kr-nlein-shots-156314/
Again, irrelevant to THIS case.
No, it's as relevant as I want to make it. You ask about natural
triangular flaps and I answer "Kroenlein shot." That gives you natural
flaps.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Your point about no surgery is silly. The alterationist theory is that
surgery was done on the dead President. Humes thought that Parkland had
done surgery on the head, so he called them and they said that no they
had not done any surgery on the head.
You need to get up to speed here.
I am up to speed. Humes can tell gauze from bone, too. He's a pathologist.
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Humes_0036a.gif
GAUZE
Not BONE
Not. Bone, not gauze. Both are present. The Z film shows yellow white bone
and no gauze.
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-06 14:13:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve BH
Post by Anthony Marsh
Not exactly. Gauze squares. When Humes saw the gauze squares packed into
the head wound he ASSuMEd that they were left over from the surgery done
in Parkland Hospital.
No, he's a tough question for you so if you are a WC defender please do
Does the human brain have any right angles?
When you look at the autopsy photos you can see a right angle sticking
out. So do you ASSuME that is brain tissue? Is there any autopsy doctor
stupid enough that he would ASSuME that is brain tissue?
At least Humes instantly knew it was gauze squares, not brain tissue.
But is there any WC defender as smart as Humes?
Sure, I'm as smart as Humes. Or your next guy. And have done and seen
So you are admitting that you aren't very smart because Humes wasn't very
smart. So you believe in ice bullets? The point was that no matter how
stupid Humes was at least he instantly saw and recognized the gauze
squares packed into the top of head and assumed that they were left over
from surgery done at Parkland. Are you smart enough to understand that?
BTW, I am not impressed by your bragging. You can't back it up.
Post by Steve BH
autopsies, and have handloaded and fired more types of pistols and
high-powered rifles than you've probably ever _seen_.
Again, the Carcano was not a high-powered rifle.
Although the term "high powered rifle" is not well-defined, any shooter
would agree that the Carcano firing military rounds qualifies. It has
No, no expert says that.
Post by Steve BH
twice the momentum and kick as the M-16, and a muzzle energy 22% higher.
What are you mumbling about?
Do you even know what FPS means?
Post by Steve BH
The M-16 is a high powered rifle. Most soldiers do not want to go to war
with anything else. Basically, if you can hunt deer with it comfortably,
Most soldiers? Most soldiers don't have much choice. They take what they
are given. In guerrila warfare US troops would rather use the AK-47 that
they grabbed from the dead enemy bodies.
Post by Steve BH
it's high-powered. The energy and velocity of the Carcano and the .30-30
Winchester are essentially identical, and the Carcano is more accurate and
Give me your stats.
Post by Steve BH
fires a flatter ballistic arc, due to considerably better ballistic
coefficient bullet.
The Carcano has one of the highest mid-range trajectories. Read Emary:

6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early
model M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero
sight. Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed
sights. The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint
the WWII era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and
simplicity. The early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight
being at 300 meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected
the trend of that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a
maximum height of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to
200 yards, depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian
soldiers life was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.

Whelen demonstrated the disadvantage of a high trajectory in this diagram:

Loading Image...

The Carcano had a very high curved trajectory.
Post by Steve BH
Post by Anthony Marsh
Again, tell me what high-powered rifle you think was fired in Dealey Plaza.
<crickets>
No crickets here. Oswald's Carcano qualifies nicely. It could penetrate 3
feet of pine, which no .30-30 can do.
You did not answer my question because you can't.
The Carcano is not a high-powered rifle.
Post by Steve BH
Post by Anthony Marsh
You have no standing or qualifications to be lecturing me.
Actually I do, but never mind. I don't give a shit.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve BH
If you take the human body and subject it to outside mechanical forces,
like get the scalp caught in a rapidly rotating wheel of machinery, it
will not only tear the scalp off, but you'll see some triangular flaps of
bone. They are not gauze.
Irrelevant to THIS case.
No, it isn't. You asked by triangular flaps of bone and scalp. They are
are known to be produced by bullet explosions after they encounter human
heads. End of story.
Post by Anthony Marsh
That is not bone sticking out. Bowron packed gauze squares into the head
wound.
Depends on what you are talking about. The "devil's ear" triangular piece
the juts out above (cranially to) JFK's right ear, IS both bone and scalp.
It is between ear and vertex of the head. It's not gauze. In the 3/4 view
Yes, exactly. We can SEE it sticking out. That is not what I was talking
about.
Post by Steve BH
from the right you can see another shallower triangular piece taken out of
the forehead above the president's right eye, and can see the flap above
it that was pulled up to do it (at the base of this is the "hole" that
some see, but it's probably just a dark place where you are looking deeper
into the head, as there is no skull under it.)
WTF? Maybe you haven't seen the other autopsy photos.
The later photo taken after the brain had been removed shows the hole in
the skull.

Loading Image...
Post by Steve BH
The devil's ear is both skull AND scalp, and you can see it, if you look
closely, in F8, the view into the interior of the skull. As well as a bit
of JFK's ear, which you can recognize if you've been staring at these long
enough. F8, BTW, is not oriented correctly in most illustrations. The
Jeez, do I ever know that. The Alteraionist thought the forehead was the
back of the head or had it turned 90 degrees.
Post by Steve BH
ruler is UNDER the photo. This allows the reflection of the rim of the
glass specimen container to be oriented so that it is upright and nothing
would be pouring out of it. <g>
I happen to believe that F8 is looking at FJK's skull from the rear. That
is a giant crack in the back of his skull, not the front of it. Still,
most of the wound is above the ear, not in the rear.
Wrong. I just showed you the proper orientation.
Don't be an alterationist.
Dr. Lawrence Angel was a lot more qualified than either of us to orient
it correctly and he saw ALL the photos and X-rays.

Loading Image...
Post by Steve BH
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve BH
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4736888/
These triangular skull fractures were also seen in the Aberdeen tests of
the Carcano, although they didn't use fresh skulls. You can see a scalp
Not skull. You keep bring up irrelevant things. You think Humes was not
smart enough to know the difference between bone and gauze? And you say
you are as smart as Humes. Do you really want to admit that?
Humes was not talking about gauze in looking at bone flap. You can see
guaze, I think, in the vertex shot of JFK looking straight down at the top
of his head. Just to right of midline is some ropy-looking material inside
the head that people have assumed is cerebral convolution. I think it's
gauze.
Post by Anthony Marsh
So, if you think it is bone, which bone was it?
Some fragment of the parietal bone above the ear.
So, you admit that you can't tell the difference between bone and gauze.
Then show me the gauze sticking out.
Post by Steve BH
Post by Anthony Marsh
Do you SEE that bone sticking out there in the Zapruder film?
Which frame?
The Z-film is not high res enough to show you things like that.
Oh please. Don't give me that lame excuse. Most people can see the piece
of skull sticking out above the ear.
Post by Steve BH
There is a yellow-white object that appears attached to scalp in front of
JFK's right ear (not "above it" or anatomically cranial, but anatomically
anterior-- over his face). It is very irregular, and is probably a really
You mean the same piece of skull that we can see sticking out in the
autopsy photos? Again, YOU have not done your homework and looked at ALL
the autopsy photos:

Loading Image...

Loading Image...

Loading Image...
Post by Steve BH
large plate of parietal skull. You see it well in 333, 335 and 355. It's
not Jackie's white gloved left hand, as we see them both in Z-330, and
this is part of the president's head. It is well forward of anything seen
in the autopsy photos-- and again is mostly over the face, judging by how
forward of the ear-ear line it is. There is a large (10 cm) fragment
X-Rayed (along with two far smaller ones) in 7HSCA721 fig 126. It's not
the Harper fragment, but a big piece of the skull found under the Connally
jumpseat from which it probably rebounded.
You are making no sense here. What large piece of skull? What exhibit
number? No piece of skull was found under the Connally jump seat. The
jump seat rests flat on the floor. There is no way for anything to fly
underneath it.
Where did you read this? Please tell me the name of the book and the
page number.
Post by Steve BH
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/frags/bone_frags.htm
As for JFK's scalp, it's very far forward in the Z film, and clearly has
been pushed back by Ms K and others before the autopsy photos. In Z-335
How in the world does Jackie push scalp back? Try it on your own head.
Post by Steve BH
you can see a mist of brown that partly hides Jackie's pink upper left
arm! That's hair! It's not hair in motion with regard to JFK because you
see it in frame after frame. And it's not blood because the arm before and
after moves behind it, then out of its way. It's scalp with attached brown
hair, which you can see THROUGH in Z-335.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Now they see why you can't answer my questions.
Post by Steve BH
evulsion in JFK himself, over his right eye. And from the 3/4 high angle
you can see the triangular scalp flap that fit into it.
No, show me what you think you see.
No, they don't allow us to post photos in his forum. Look at it yourself.
Jeez, I complained about that a long time ago and McAdams never changed
it for us, although he posts photos when HE wants to.
That's why you have to find a web site that has all those photos and
then you cut and paste the link here as I just did for you.
A lot of these are sill on Ken Rahn's web site.
Post by Steve BH
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve BH
You wanna see triangular flaps? Google "Kronlein shot." [Umlaut o = Kroenlein shot] That's what
happens when a firearm impulse blows the brains out of the inside of the
skull, and you see scalp flap damage from inside pressure. Lots of right
angles. Look closely, my friend. No surgery has been done, as these people
are dead, dead, dead.
https://www.documentingreality.com/forum/f10/kr-nlein-shots-156314/
Again, irrelevant to THIS case.
No, it's as relevant as I want to make it. You ask about natural
No, YOU do not get to determine what is relevant when you know so little
about this case. You are here to LEARN not lecture.
Post by Steve BH
triangular flaps and I answer "Kroenlein shot." That gives you natural
flaps.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Your point about no surgery is silly. The alterationist theory is that
surgery was done on the dead President. Humes thought that Parkland had
done surgery on the head, so he called them and they said that no they
had not done any surgery on the head.
You need to get up to speed here.
I am up to speed. Humes can tell gauze from bone, too. He's a pathologist.
But apparently YOU can not tell the difference between gauze and bone.
Post by Steve BH
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Humes_0036a.gif
GAUZE
Not BONE
Not. Bone, not gauze. Both are present. The Z film shows yellow white bone
and no gauze.
When the wrappings were removed they took several photos of the body
before doing any work on it. The only thing you see is gauze of blood or
brain tissue. No bone.
mainframetech
2018-04-05 02:52:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
Post by Anthony Marsh
Not exactly. Gauze squares. When Humes saw the gauze squares packed into
the head wound he ASSuMEd that they were left over from the surgery done
in Parkland Hospital.
No, he's a tough question for you so if you are a WC defender please do
Does the human brain have any right angles?
When you look at the autopsy photos you can see a right angle sticking
out. So do you ASSuME that is brain tissue? Is there any autopsy doctor
stupid enough that he would ASSuME that is brain tissue?
At least Humes instantly knew it was gauze squares, not brain tissue.
But is there any WC defender as smart as Humes?
Sure, I'm as smart as Humes. Or your next guy. And have done and seen
autopsies, and have handloaded and fired more types of pistols and
high-powered rifles than you've probably ever _seen_.
If you take the human body and subject it to outside mechanical forces,
like get the scalp caught in a rapidly rotating wheel of machinery, it
will not only tear the scalp off, but you'll see some triangular flaps of
bone. They are not gauze.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4736888/
These triangular skull fractures were also seen in the Aberdeen tests of
the Carcano, although they didn't use fresh skulls. You can see a scalp
evulsion in JFK himself, over his right eye. And from the 3/4 high angle
you can see the triangular scalp flap that fit into it.
You wanna see triangular flaps? Google "Kronlein shot." That's what
happens when a firearm impulse blows the brains out of the inside of the
skull, and you see scalp flap damage from inside pressure. Lots of right
angles. Look closely, my friend. No surgery has been done, as these people
are dead, dead, dead.
https://www.documentingreality.com/forum/f10/kr-nlein-shots-156314/
Make sure you don't mix up the gauze placed on the forehead to cover
up the bullet entry wound located there in the autopsy photo. There was a
triangular bone flap that was over the right ear, but not over the right
eye. Notice in other photos that gauze wasn't present, and in the
'stare-of-death' photo is the entry wound when you ENLARGE the photo.

Chris
bigdog
2018-04-05 22:55:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
Post by Anthony Marsh
Not exactly. Gauze squares. When Humes saw the gauze squares packed into
the head wound he ASSuMEd that they were left over from the surgery done
in Parkland Hospital.
No, he's a tough question for you so if you are a WC defender please do
Does the human brain have any right angles?
When you look at the autopsy photos you can see a right angle sticking
out. So do you ASSuME that is brain tissue? Is there any autopsy doctor
stupid enough that he would ASSuME that is brain tissue?
At least Humes instantly knew it was gauze squares, not brain tissue.
But is there any WC defender as smart as Humes?
Sure, I'm as smart as Humes. Or your next guy. And have done and seen
autopsies, and have handloaded and fired more types of pistols and
high-powered rifles than you've probably ever _seen_.
If you take the human body and subject it to outside mechanical forces,
like get the scalp caught in a rapidly rotating wheel of machinery, it
will not only tear the scalp off, but you'll see some triangular flaps of
bone. They are not gauze.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4736888/
These triangular skull fractures were also seen in the Aberdeen tests of
the Carcano, although they didn't use fresh skulls. You can see a scalp
evulsion in JFK himself, over his right eye. And from the 3/4 high angle
you can see the triangular scalp flap that fit into it.
You wanna see triangular flaps? Google "Kronlein shot." That's what
happens when a firearm impulse blows the brains out of the inside of the
skull, and you see scalp flap damage from inside pressure. Lots of right
angles. Look closely, my friend. No surgery has been done, as these people
are dead, dead, dead.
https://www.documentingreality.com/forum/f10/kr-nlein-shots-156314/
Make sure you don't mix up the gauze placed on the forehead to cover
up the bullet entry wound located there in the autopsy photo.
We all know you can't cite Bowron saying she put gauze over a bullet hole
in the forehead. You can't even cite Bowron saying there was a bullet hole
in the forehead.
Post by mainframetech
There was a
triangular bone flap that was over the right ear, but not over the right
eye. Notice in other photos that gauze wasn't present, and in the
'stare-of-death' photo is the entry wound when you ENLARGE the photo.
I guess you weren't able to figure out that during the course of the
autopsy they would remove the gauze in order to examine the wound.
mainframetech
2018-04-07 00:54:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
Post by Anthony Marsh
Not exactly. Gauze squares. When Humes saw the gauze squares packed into
the head wound he ASSuMEd that they were left over from the surgery done
in Parkland Hospital.
No, he's a tough question for you so if you are a WC defender please do
Does the human brain have any right angles?
When you look at the autopsy photos you can see a right angle sticking
out. So do you ASSuME that is brain tissue? Is there any autopsy doctor
stupid enough that he would ASSuME that is brain tissue?
At least Humes instantly knew it was gauze squares, not brain tissue.
But is there any WC defender as smart as Humes?
Sure, I'm as smart as Humes. Or your next guy. And have done and seen
autopsies, and have handloaded and fired more types of pistols and
high-powered rifles than you've probably ever _seen_.
If you take the human body and subject it to outside mechanical forces,
like get the scalp caught in a rapidly rotating wheel of machinery, it
will not only tear the scalp off, but you'll see some triangular flaps of
bone. They are not gauze.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4736888/
These triangular skull fractures were also seen in the Aberdeen tests of
the Carcano, although they didn't use fresh skulls. You can see a scalp
evulsion in JFK himself, over his right eye. And from the 3/4 high angle
you can see the triangular scalp flap that fit into it.
You wanna see triangular flaps? Google "Kronlein shot." That's what
happens when a firearm impulse blows the brains out of the inside of the
skull, and you see scalp flap damage from inside pressure. Lots of right
angles. Look closely, my friend. No surgery has been done, as these people
are dead, dead, dead.
https://www.documentingreality.com/forum/f10/kr-nlein-shots-156314/
Make sure you don't mix up the gauze placed on the forehead to cover
up the bullet entry wound located there in the autopsy photo.
We all know you can't cite Bowron saying she put gauze over a bullet hole
in the forehead. You can't even cite Bowron saying there was a bullet hole
in the forehead.
Of course not. Why would I do that? I have plenty of other witnesses
to the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area. It was small and wasn't
bleeding, so it could easily be bypassed by many. But as you well know,
there is a list of witnesses to that bullet hole. And you can't prove
that Bowron put the gauze there or took it away. I believe it was there
to take the photo and cover up the real cause of the killing.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There was a
triangular bone flap that was over the right ear, but not over the right
eye. Notice in other photos that gauze wasn't present, and in the
'stare-of-death' photo is the entry wound when you ENLARGE the photo.
I guess you weren't able to figure out that during the course of the
autopsy they would remove the gauze in order to examine the wound.
Or it was put into the phony autopsy photo to cover the real kill shot.

Chris
bigdog
2018-04-08 02:21:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
Post by Anthony Marsh
Not exactly. Gauze squares. When Humes saw the gauze squares packed into
the head wound he ASSuMEd that they were left over from the surgery done
in Parkland Hospital.
No, he's a tough question for you so if you are a WC defender please do
Does the human brain have any right angles?
When you look at the autopsy photos you can see a right angle sticking
out. So do you ASSuME that is brain tissue? Is there any autopsy doctor
stupid enough that he would ASSuME that is brain tissue?
At least Humes instantly knew it was gauze squares, not brain tissue.
But is there any WC defender as smart as Humes?
Sure, I'm as smart as Humes. Or your next guy. And have done and seen
autopsies, and have handloaded and fired more types of pistols and
high-powered rifles than you've probably ever _seen_.
If you take the human body and subject it to outside mechanical forces,
like get the scalp caught in a rapidly rotating wheel of machinery, it
will not only tear the scalp off, but you'll see some triangular flaps of
bone. They are not gauze.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4736888/
These triangular skull fractures were also seen in the Aberdeen tests of
the Carcano, although they didn't use fresh skulls. You can see a scalp
evulsion in JFK himself, over his right eye. And from the 3/4 high angle
you can see the triangular scalp flap that fit into it.
You wanna see triangular flaps? Google "Kronlein shot." That's what
happens when a firearm impulse blows the brains out of the inside of the
skull, and you see scalp flap damage from inside pressure. Lots of right
angles. Look closely, my friend. No surgery has been done, as these people
are dead, dead, dead.
https://www.documentingreality.com/forum/f10/kr-nlein-shots-156314/
Make sure you don't mix up the gauze placed on the forehead to cover
up the bullet entry wound located there in the autopsy photo.
We all know you can't cite Bowron saying she put gauze over a bullet hole
in the forehead. You can't even cite Bowron saying there was a bullet hole
in the forehead.
Of course not. Why would I do that? I have plenty of other witnesses
to the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area.
Np you don't. You don't have any. You cite witnesses who placed it in
other locations in the front right side of JFK's head but nobody but you
and Marsh claim to see a bullet hole in the forehead. Birds of a feather.
Post by mainframetech
It was small and wasn't bleeding, so it could easily be bypassed by many.
As you did for many years until you realized you needed to have one there
at which point you convinced yourself there was one.
Post by mainframetech
But as you well know,
there is a list of witnesses to that bullet hole.
The list consists of you and Marsh. People who placed the wound elsewhere
on the front right side of JFK's heads don't count.
Post by mainframetech
And you can't prove that Bowron put the gauze there or took it away.
Why would I need to. You are the one relying on Bowron.
Post by mainframetech
I believe it was there to take the photo and cover up the real cause of the > > killing.
What does what you believe have to do with anything?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There was a
triangular bone flap that was over the right ear, but not over the right
eye. Notice in other photos that gauze wasn't present, and in the
'stare-of-death' photo is the entry wound when you ENLARGE the photo.
I guess you weren't able to figure out that during the course of the
autopsy they would remove the gauze in order to examine the wound.
Or it was put into the phony autopsy photo to cover the real kill shot.
Imagine what you like. It's a free country.
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-07 02:13:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
Post by Anthony Marsh
Not exactly. Gauze squares. When Humes saw the gauze squares packed into
the head wound he ASSuMEd that they were left over from the surgery done
in Parkland Hospital.
No, he's a tough question for you so if you are a WC defender please do
Does the human brain have any right angles?
When you look at the autopsy photos you can see a right angle sticking
out. So do you ASSuME that is brain tissue? Is there any autopsy doctor
stupid enough that he would ASSuME that is brain tissue?
At least Humes instantly knew it was gauze squares, not brain tissue.
But is there any WC defender as smart as Humes?
Sure, I'm as smart as Humes. Or your next guy. And have done and seen
autopsies, and have handloaded and fired more types of pistols and
high-powered rifles than you've probably ever _seen_.
If you take the human body and subject it to outside mechanical forces,
like get the scalp caught in a rapidly rotating wheel of machinery, it
will not only tear the scalp off, but you'll see some triangular flaps of
bone. They are not gauze.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4736888/
These triangular skull fractures were also seen in the Aberdeen tests of
the Carcano, although they didn't use fresh skulls. You can see a scalp
evulsion in JFK himself, over his right eye. And from the 3/4 high angle
you can see the triangular scalp flap that fit into it.
You wanna see triangular flaps? Google "Kronlein shot." That's what
happens when a firearm impulse blows the brains out of the inside of the
skull, and you see scalp flap damage from inside pressure. Lots of right
angles. Look closely, my friend. No surgery has been done, as these people
are dead, dead, dead.
https://www.documentingreality.com/forum/f10/kr-nlein-shots-156314/
Make sure you don't mix up the gauze placed on the forehead to cover
up the bullet entry wound located there in the autopsy photo.
We all know you can't cite Bowron saying she put gauze over a bullet hole
in the forehead. You can't even cite Bowron saying there was a bullet hole
in the forehead.
Post by mainframetech
There was a
triangular bone flap that was over the right ear, but not over the right
eye. Notice in other photos that gauze wasn't present, and in the
'stare-of-death' photo is the entry wound when you ENLARGE the photo.
I guess you weren't able to figure out that during the course of the
autopsy they would remove the gauze in order to examine the wound.
We are talking about what it looked like before they started the autopsy.
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-05 23:38:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
Post by Anthony Marsh
Not exactly. Gauze squares. When Humes saw the gauze squares packed into
the head wound he ASSuMEd that they were left over from the surgery done
in Parkland Hospital.
No, he's a tough question for you so if you are a WC defender please do
Does the human brain have any right angles?
When you look at the autopsy photos you can see a right angle sticking
out. So do you ASSuME that is brain tissue? Is there any autopsy doctor
stupid enough that he would ASSuME that is brain tissue?
At least Humes instantly knew it was gauze squares, not brain tissue.
But is there any WC defender as smart as Humes?
Sure, I'm as smart as Humes. Or your next guy. And have done and seen
autopsies, and have handloaded and fired more types of pistols and
high-powered rifles than you've probably ever _seen_.
If you take the human body and subject it to outside mechanical forces,
like get the scalp caught in a rapidly rotating wheel of machinery, it
will not only tear the scalp off, but you'll see some triangular flaps of
bone. They are not gauze.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4736888/
These triangular skull fractures were also seen in the Aberdeen tests of
the Carcano, although they didn't use fresh skulls. You can see a scalp
evulsion in JFK himself, over his right eye. And from the 3/4 high angle
you can see the triangular scalp flap that fit into it.
You wanna see triangular flaps? Google "Kronlein shot." That's what
happens when a firearm impulse blows the brains out of the inside of the
skull, and you see scalp flap damage from inside pressure. Lots of right
angles. Look closely, my friend. No surgery has been done, as these people
are dead, dead, dead.
https://www.documentingreality.com/forum/f10/kr-nlein-shots-156314/
Make sure you don't mix up the gauze placed on the forehead to cover
up the bullet entry wound located there in the autopsy photo. There was a
triangular bone flap that was over the right ear, but not over the right
eye. Notice in other photos that gauze wasn't present, and in the
'stare-of-death' photo is the entry wound when you ENLARGE the photo.
Actually the gauze squares help us see where he entrance hole is and
they were packed into the large hole on the top of the head.
Post by mainframetech
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-03 11:13:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
"Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir."
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"HL: Because I have, I have reports from the morticians in Washington. So,
since you haven't read it-that's good. Because, what you're telling me is
not influenced by what I wrote already. But do you remember any
perforations in the head or did you see any holes or anything like a
bullet hole anywhere on his skull or in the back of the skull?
DB: At the back of the skull, an enormous hole.
HL: And would you-is that in the general area where that drawing- those
drawings-I'm sure you've seen them-where they've got a big piece of skull
missing in the very back of the head?
DB: Yes.
HL: Would you say that the hole's extended as far around as to be just
behind the right ear?
DB: Yes. It was more towards the right ear, definitely, then the left. But
it was, it was big. I mean, I could-and for when I did the thing, I had to
pack, you know, linens into there."
Note that the wound she describes was near to the right ear, and if you
put your right hand back behind your ear, you can feel the location she
was talking about. The hole in the BOH was close to th back part of the
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
An interesting side issue came up when I was digging up the interview
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"DB: No towel, because I washed his hair. This is what I was going to write
to you about all these autopsy photographs with all the blood clots and
everything on the back....
HL: Is there anything peculiar about those pictures?
DB: Very peculiar, very peculiar. (Very long pause as she awaits a
question.)
HL: Well, I think they're fake as hell.
DB: Definitely. Definitely. On those pages that you told me, there's three
together, top of the F 6 and F 7, and something that-all are fake
completely because I washed all the clots out of his hair before I wrapped
it up."
From: http://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/QbgORExR/nurse-diana-bowron
So she noticed the faked autopsy photos too. If they were the ones
shown to the medical panels, then that partly how they were fooled.
That's incredibly damaging to arguments against the blowout to the BOH.
The dozens of witnesses verifying each other aren't crazy or confused as
LN's try to convince people. It's a matter of trust: either the governmental
agency that stole the body to ensure an illegal autopsy (performed by an
agency of the government), or dozens of witnesses/average citizens not
under government command.
Now you have to deal with the fact not one passenger in the SSA security
car close behind the Limousine saw a BOH wound, including two top staff
members at the Whitehouse. Jackie Kennedy said the wound was on top of
the head. Stroble confirmed the large head wound was on the vertex of the
skull. Even Bowron admitted damage to the top of the head.
"Mr. SPECTER - And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to
President Kennedy's condition?
Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee
and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other
side of the car I saw the condition of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir."
With all the blood it would be very difficult to see a small entrance
wound. With the forward flaps closed she wouldn't be able to determine the
extent of the blowout with just a quick glance. That would have required a
close inspection of the head wound which nobody at Parkland did in the
brief time they were trying to save his life.
WRONG! What a crock! "with all the blood" is silly, since Nurse Diana
Bowron was specifically washing the blood off the body and the hair.
And all the while the blood kept flowing. That's why when the body reached
Bethesda the wrap around the head was soaked in blood.
Yes, everybody knows your blood keeps flowing after you are dead. Bowron
packed gauze squares and wrapped the head with a towel to catch the blood.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And
that also gave her a close look at the wound in the BOH, as noted above,
and it was the only one she saw. There were no "flaps" there either at
that time.
Of course there were. We see them in the Z-film. Most of us aren't foolish
enough to dismiss that.
SHOW me the flaps YOU see.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
By handling the head, it would be OBVIOUS that there was a
breakup of parts of the head if that were true.
It is an absolute certainty that the skull broke up because that's what
happens to a skull when it is hit by a bullet fired from a high powered
rifle. That happens 100% of the time. That would have been true even if
Name the high powered rifle. A Carcano is not a high powered rifle.
Post by bigdog
the shot had been fired from the GK or from in front of the limo as you
have claimed.
Post by mainframetech
I've had that experience
of handling a head after the skull had been cracked in many places, and it
is immediately OBVIOUS. There were NO "flaps" at that time. The only
flap that was there on the right side over the ear was made by Humes and
Boswell at Bethesda.
Pure fantasy.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
As Dr. Carrico explained it
quite well, the first order of business is to restore basic functions, a
heartbeat and respiration. Obviously those efforts were going to be futile
but that's what they tried to do anyway.
I know you refuse to accept it because it is incompatible with your
beliefs but the Z-film is still the best witness we have and it showed
that JFK's head was blown open all along the upper right side. It fits
perfectly with the AR which described the skull defect as being chiefly
parietal extending somewhat into the occipital and temporal regions. Since
your can't reconcile the Z-film or the AR with what you would rather
believe, you simply embrace whatever excuse you can find to dismiss both
as fraudulent. I guess when you don't want to make your beliefs fit the
evidence you are forced to try to make the evidence fit your beliefs.
WRONG! How silly of you to try and decide what I think!
That is a pretty silly thing to do. How could anybody know what and how
you think?
Post by mainframetech
I think my
thoughts usually based on the evidence, and that shows us that the flap of
bone above the right ear was not there until Bethesda, and that meant the
point where Humes and Boswell did their clandestine work on the body. So
it was created by them. Their information could well be passed on to the
CIA film alteration crew to be added to the film, making the 2 match, and
get the suckers believing the scam. There is no doubt the film was
altered.
This is a perfect example of what I just wrote. I have no idea how anybody
could arrive at such a silly conclusion. It is amazing the silly things
you will dream up to try to hold your fantasies together. So no you have
Humes and Boswell not only altering the head wound but passing it on to
the CIA so they could alter the Z-film to match what they did. So how did
they get Zapruder and Newman to describe exactly what we see in the
Z-film. The gave their accounts on live local TV within hours of the
shooting.
claviger
2018-04-05 01:14:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
"Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir."
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"HL: Because I have, I have reports from the morticians in Washington. So,
since you haven't read it-that's good. Because, what you're telling me is
not influenced by what I wrote already. But do you remember any
perforations in the head or did you see any holes or anything like a
bullet hole anywhere on his skull or in the back of the skull?
DB: At the back of the skull, an enormous hole.
HL: And would you-is that in the general area where that drawing- those
drawings-I'm sure you've seen them-where they've got a big piece of skull
missing in the very back of the head?
DB: Yes.
HL: Would you say that the hole's extended as far around as to be just
behind the right ear?
DB: Yes. It was more towards the right ear, definitely, then the left. But
it was, it was big. I mean, I could-and for when I did the thing, I had to
pack, you know, linens into there."
Note that the wound she describes was near to the right ear, and if you
put your right hand back behind your ear, you can feel the location she
was talking about. The hole in the BOH was close to th back part of the
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
An interesting side issue came up when I was digging up the interview
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"DB: No towel, because I washed his hair. This is what I was going to write
to you about all these autopsy photographs with all the blood clots and
everything on the back....
HL: Is there anything peculiar about those pictures?
DB: Very peculiar, very peculiar. (Very long pause as she awaits a
question.)
HL: Well, I think they're fake as hell.
DB: Definitely. Definitely. On those pages that you told me, there's three
together, top of the F 6 and F 7, and something that-all are fake
completely because I washed all the clots out of his hair before I wrapped
it up."
From: http://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/QbgORExR/nurse-diana-bowron
So she noticed the faked autopsy photos too. If they were the ones
shown to the medical panels, then that partly how they were fooled.
That's incredibly damaging to arguments against the blowout to the BOH.
The dozens of witnesses verifying each other aren't crazy or confused as
LN's try to convince people. It's a matter of trust: either the governmental
agency that stole the body to ensure an illegal autopsy (performed by an
agency of the government), or dozens of witnesses/average citizens not
under government command.
Now you have to deal with the fact not one passenger in the SSA security
car close behind the Limousine saw a BOH wound, including two top staff
members at the Whitehouse. Jackie Kennedy said the wound was on top of
the head. Stroble confirmed the large head wound was on the vertex of the
skull. Even Bowron admitted damage to the top of the head.
"Mr. SPECTER - And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to
President Kennedy's condition?
Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee
and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other
side of the car I saw the condition of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir."
Chris
alt.assassination.jfk ›
Interview - Nurse Diana Bowron
1 post by 1 author

HL: On the back of the head, did it extend around as far as the top of the
head? How much of the top of the head was missing? Was top of, was bone
missing as far as the sagittal suture-is that the one that goes across the
head?

DB: Hang on, you're getting terribly technical. I haven't nursed for
years. I'll have to go back to the textbooks.

HL: How much skull was missing on the top of the head, would you say, that
extended into that back of the head region?

DB: Oh, a reasonable amount.

HL: So part of the top of the head was missing in the back?

DB: Just trying to think how to put it to you. The hole was basically
almost the size of a saucer, and sort of from the occiput. So there was
quite a reasonable amount missing from the top as well.
mainframetech
2018-04-05 23:00:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
"Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir."
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"HL: Because I have, I have reports from the morticians in Washington. So,
since you haven't read it-that's good. Because, what you're telling me is
not influenced by what I wrote already. But do you remember any
perforations in the head or did you see any holes or anything like a
bullet hole anywhere on his skull or in the back of the skull?
DB: At the back of the skull, an enormous hole.
HL: And would you-is that in the general area where that drawing- those
drawings-I'm sure you've seen them-where they've got a big piece of skull
missing in the very back of the head?
DB: Yes.
HL: Would you say that the hole's extended as far around as to be just
behind the right ear?
DB: Yes. It was more towards the right ear, definitely, then the left. But
it was, it was big. I mean, I could-and for when I did the thing, I had to
pack, you know, linens into there."
Note that the wound she describes was near to the right ear, and if you
put your right hand back behind your ear, you can feel the location she
was talking about. The hole in the BOH was close to th back part of the
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
An interesting side issue came up when I was digging up the interview
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"DB: No towel, because I washed his hair. This is what I was going to write
to you about all these autopsy photographs with all the blood clots and
everything on the back....
HL: Is there anything peculiar about those pictures?
DB: Very peculiar, very peculiar. (Very long pause as she awaits a
question.)
HL: Well, I think they're fake as hell.
DB: Definitely. Definitely. On those pages that you told me, there's three
together, top of the F 6 and F 7, and something that-all are fake
completely because I washed all the clots out of his hair before I wrapped
it up."
From: http://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/QbgORExR/nurse-diana-bowron
So she noticed the faked autopsy photos too. If they were the ones
shown to the medical panels, then that partly how they were fooled.
That's incredibly damaging to arguments against the blowout to the BOH.
The dozens of witnesses verifying each other aren't crazy or confused as
LN's try to convince people. It's a matter of trust: either the governmental
agency that stole the body to ensure an illegal autopsy (performed by an
agency of the government), or dozens of witnesses/average citizens not
under government command.
Now you have to deal with the fact not one passenger in the SSA security
car close behind the Limousine saw a BOH wound, including two top staff
members at the Whitehouse. Jackie Kennedy said the wound was on top of
the head. Stroble confirmed the large head wound was on the vertex of the
skull. Even Bowron admitted damage to the top of the head.
"Mr. SPECTER - And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to
President Kennedy's condition?
Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee
and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other
side of the car I saw the condition of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir."
Chris
alt.assassination.jfk ›
Interview - Nurse Diana Bowron
1 post by 1 author
HL: On the back of the head, did it extend around as far as the top of the
head? How much of the top of the head was missing? Was top of, was bone
missing as far as the sagittal suture-is that the one that goes across the
head?
DB: Hang on, you're getting terribly technical. I haven't nursed for
years. I'll have to go back to the textbooks.
HL: How much skull was missing on the top of the head, would you say, that
extended into that back of the head region?
DB: Oh, a reasonable amount.
HL: So part of the top of the head was missing in the back?
DB: Just trying to think how to put it to you. The hole was basically
almost the size of a saucer, and sort of from the occiput. So there was
quite a reasonable amount missing from the top as well.
Yet another witness that first saw only the 'large hole' at the BOH,
then much later thought they saw the wound expanded. She may have gotten
the info from the phony autopsy and like some of the doctors later said
the wound went around the side because the autopsy Report (AR) said that.
Shows what an important move that was to phony up the AR.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-30 11:51:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
"Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir."
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"HL: Because I have, I have reports from the morticians in Washington. So,
since you haven't read it-that's good. Because, what you're telling me is
not influenced by what I wrote already. But do you remember any
perforations in the head or did you see any holes or anything like a
bullet hole anywhere on his skull or in the back of the skull?
DB: At the back of the skull, an enormous hole.
HL: And would you-is that in the general area where that drawing- those
drawings-I'm sure you've seen them-where they've got a big piece of skull
missing in the very back of the head?
DB: Yes.
HL: Would you say that the hole's extended as far around as to be just
behind the right ear?
DB: Yes. It was more towards the right ear, definitely, then the left. But
it was, it was big. I mean, I could-and for when I did the thing, I had to
pack, you know, linens into there."
Note that the wound she describes was near to the right ear, and if you
put your right hand back behind your ear, you can feel the location she
was talking about. The hole in the BOH was close to th back part of the
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
An interesting side issue came up when I was digging up the interview
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"DB: No towel, because I washed his hair. This is what I was going to write
to you about all these autopsy photographs with all the blood clots and
everything on the back....
HL: Is there anything peculiar about those pictures?
DB: Very peculiar, very peculiar. (Very long pause as she awaits a
question.)
HL: Well, I think they're fake as hell.
DB: Definitely. Definitely. On those pages that you told me, there's three
together, top of the F 6 and F 7, and something that-all are fake
completely because I washed all the clots out of his hair before I wrapped
it up."
From: http://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/QbgORExR/nurse-diana-bowron
So she noticed the faked autopsy photos too. If they were the ones
shown to the medical panels, then that partly how they were fooled.
That's incredibly damaging to arguments against the blowout to the BOH.
The dozens of witnesses verifying each other aren't crazy or confused as
LN's try to convince people. It's a matter of trust: either the governmental
agency that stole the body to ensure an illegal autopsy (performed by an
agency of the government), or dozens of witnesses/average citizens not
under government command.
Now you have to deal with the fact not one passenger in the SSA security
car close behind the Limousine saw a BOH wound, including two top staff
members at the Whitehouse. Jackie Kennedy said the wound was on top of
the head. Stroble confirmed the large head wound was on the vertex of the
skull. Even Bowron admitted damage to the top of the head.
Just LOOK at where she packed the gauze into the head wound. On the TOP
of the head all the way up to the front.
claviger
2018-04-05 01:17:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
"Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir."
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"HL: Because I have, I have reports from the morticians in Washington. So,
since you haven't read it-that's good. Because, what you're telling me is
not influenced by what I wrote already. But do you remember any
perforations in the head or did you see any holes or anything like a
bullet hole anywhere on his skull or in the back of the skull?
DB: At the back of the skull, an enormous hole.
HL: And would you-is that in the general area where that drawing- those
drawings-I'm sure you've seen them-where they've got a big piece of skull
missing in the very back of the head?
DB: Yes.
HL: Would you say that the hole's extended as far around as to be just
behind the right ear?
DB: Yes. It was more towards the right ear, definitely, then the left. But
it was, it was big. I mean, I could-and for when I did the thing, I had to
pack, you know, linens into there."
Note that the wound she describes was near to the right ear, and if you
put your right hand back behind your ear, you can feel the location she
was talking about. The hole in the BOH was close to th back part of the
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
An interesting side issue came up when I was digging up the interview
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"DB: No towel, because I washed his hair. This is what I was going to write
to you about all these autopsy photographs with all the blood clots and
everything on the back....
HL: Is there anything peculiar about those pictures?
DB: Very peculiar, very peculiar. (Very long pause as she awaits a
question.)
HL: Well, I think they're fake as hell.
DB: Definitely. Definitely. On those pages that you told me, there's three
together, top of the F 6 and F 7, and something that-all are fake
completely because I washed all the clots out of his hair before I wrapped
it up."
From: http://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/QbgORExR/nurse-diana-bowron
So she noticed the faked autopsy photos too. If they were the ones
shown to the medical panels, then that partly how they were fooled.
That's incredibly damaging to arguments against the blowout to the BOH.
The dozens of witnesses verifying each other aren't crazy or confused as
LN's try to convince people. It's a matter of trust: either the governmental
agency that stole the body to ensure an illegal autopsy (performed by an
agency of the government), or dozens of witnesses/average citizens not
under government command.
Now you have to deal with the fact not one passenger in the SSA security
car close behind the Limousine saw a BOH wound, including two top staff
members at the Whitehouse. Jackie Kennedy said the wound was on top of
the head. Stroble confirmed the large head wound was on the vertex of the
skull. Even Bowron admitted damage to the top of the head.
alt.assassination.jfk ›
Interview - Nurse Diana Bowron
1 post by 1 author
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/robert$20harris$20nurse$20diana$20bowron%7Csort:date/alt.assassination.jfk/SZgnJ5f_iG4/_KnpAq5fWE8J
Nurse Diana Bowron
http://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/QbgORExR/nurse-diana-bowron

HL: On the back of the head, did it extend around as far as the top of the
head? How much of the top of the head was missing? Was top of, was bone
missing as far as the sagittal suture-is that the one that goes across the
head?

DB: Hang on, you're getting terribly technical. I haven't nursed for
years. I'll have to go back to the textbooks.

HL: How much skull was missing on the top of the head, would you say, that
extended into that back of the head region?

DB: Oh, a reasonable amount.

HL: So part of the top of the head was missing in the back?

DB: Just trying to think how to put it to you. The hole was basically
almost the size of a saucer, and sort of from the occiput. So there was
quite a reasonable amount missing from the top as well.

HL: Was the occiput missing itself?

DB: I would say-

HL: I mean the protuberance.

DB: Part of it, yes.
mainframetech
2018-04-05 22:59:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
"Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir."
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"HL: Because I have, I have reports from the morticians in Washington. So,
since you haven't read it-that's good. Because, what you're telling me is
not influenced by what I wrote already. But do you remember any
perforations in the head or did you see any holes or anything like a
bullet hole anywhere on his skull or in the back of the skull?
DB: At the back of the skull, an enormous hole.
HL: And would you-is that in the general area where that drawing- those
drawings-I'm sure you've seen them-where they've got a big piece of skull
missing in the very back of the head?
DB: Yes.
HL: Would you say that the hole's extended as far around as to be just
behind the right ear?
DB: Yes. It was more towards the right ear, definitely, then the left. But
it was, it was big. I mean, I could-and for when I did the thing, I had to
pack, you know, linens into there."
Note that the wound she describes was near to the right ear, and if you
put your right hand back behind your ear, you can feel the location she
was talking about. The hole in the BOH was close to th back part of the
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
An interesting side issue came up when I was digging up the interview
HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron
"DB: No towel, because I washed his hair. This is what I was going to write
to you about all these autopsy photographs with all the blood clots and
everything on the back....
HL: Is there anything peculiar about those pictures?
DB: Very peculiar, very peculiar. (Very long pause as she awaits a
question.)
HL: Well, I think they're fake as hell.
DB: Definitely. Definitely. On those pages that you told me, there's three
together, top of the F 6 and F 7, and something that-all are fake
completely because I washed all the clots out of his hair before I wrapped
it up."
From: http://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/QbgORExR/nurse-diana-bowron
So she noticed the faked autopsy photos too. If they were the ones
shown to the medical panels, then that partly how they were fooled.
That's incredibly damaging to arguments against the blowout to the BOH.
The dozens of witnesses verifying each other aren't crazy or confused as
LN's try to convince people. It's a matter of trust: either the governmental
agency that stole the body to ensure an illegal autopsy (performed by an
agency of the government), or dozens of witnesses/average citizens not
under government command.
Now you have to deal with the fact not one passenger in the SSA security
car close behind the Limousine saw a BOH wound, including two top staff
members at the Whitehouse. Jackie Kennedy said the wound was on top of
the head. Stroble confirmed the large head wound was on the vertex of the
skull. Even Bowron admitted damage to the top of the head.
alt.assassination.jfk ›
Interview - Nurse Diana Bowron
1 post by 1 author
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/robert$20harris$20nurse$20diana$20bowron%7Csort:date/alt.assassination.jfk/SZgnJ5f_iG4/_KnpAq5fWE8J
Nurse Diana Bowron
http://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/QbgORExR/nurse-diana-bowron
HL: On the back of the head, did it extend around as far as the top of the
head? How much of the top of the head was missing? Was top of, was bone
missing as far as the sagittal suture-is that the one that goes across the
head?
DB: Hang on, you're getting terribly technical. I haven't nursed for
years. I'll have to go back to the textbooks.
HL: How much skull was missing on the top of the head, would you say, that
extended into that back of the head region?
DB: Oh, a reasonable amount.
HL: So part of the top of the head was missing in the back?
DB: Just trying to think how to put it to you. The hole was basically
almost the size of a saucer, and sort of from the occiput. So there was
quite a reasonable amount missing from the top as well.
HL: Was the occiput missing itself?
DB: I would say-
HL: I mean the protuberance.
DB: Part of it, yes.
Now that fits her drawing:

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-21 14:22:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Excellent find, Mitch. I don't have time to watch the whole thing right
now but I got through the first 18 minutes and it was quite informative.
Most significant so far is at the 16:45 mark where Dr. Carrico describes
the head wound and uses his hand to show the location and extent of the
wound and it fits perfectly with the autopsy report description of the
large defect on the upper right side of JFK's head. With his fingers he
How? Didn't you see all the Parkland people putting their hands on their
heads? Try to match that up with any bullet wound on the back of the head.
It doesn't work. Either you have to have JFK leaned way over or the bullet
come from below.
Post by bigdog
demonstrated a large wound about the size of a grapefruit and he place his
hand above his right ear. Exactly what we see in the Z-film and exactly
You see the flap of skull sticking out. That is not a bullet wound. And
Jackie closed that flap on the way to the hospital so the flap of skull
was not sticking out when Parkland saw it. Try again.
Post by bigdog
what was described in the autopsy report. I look forward to the excuse
I doubt that you've looked at ALL the drawings of the head wound done by
the autopsy doctors.
Post by bigdog
Chris comes up with to dismiss this account by Dr. Carrico which is
completely incompatible with his claim the body was altered at Bethesda to
extend the wound in the upper right side of the head. It was already there
per Dr. Carrico. Will Chris now claim that Carrico was pressured to lie,
his memory was faulty, or he was just incompetent. I can't remember if Dr.
Carrico was one of Chris's 39 witnesses to a large hole in the back of
JFK's head. If he is, he might want to drop him off the list. Carrico
doesn't help his cause.
Only 39 this week? What a weakling!
mainframetech
2018-03-19 23:55:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Mildly interesting, but more interesting is what he had to say closer
to the time, or at his first opportunity to be recorded.

Chris
bigdog
2018-03-21 00:00:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Mildly interesting, but more interesting is what he had to say closer
to the time, or at his first opportunity to be recorded.
By all means, point out the differences in what he said then as opposed to
what he said in this interview.

This is what he testified to before the WC regarding the head wound.

[quote on]

Mr. SPECTER - Would you describe as precisely for me as possible the
nature of the head wound which you observed on the President?

Dr. CARRICO - The wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in
the right occipitoparietal area. I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm.
in size, more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp
tissue. As I stated before, I believe there was shredded macerated
cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of
the skull attached to the dura.

[quote off]

Seems pretty consistent to me with how he described it in his C-Span
interview.
Steve BH
2018-03-21 18:26:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Mildly interesting, but more interesting is what he had to say closer
to the time, or at his first opportunity to be recorded.
By all means, point out the differences in what he said then as opposed to
what he said in this interview.
This is what he testified to before the WC regarding the head wound.
[quote on]
Mr. SPECTER - Would you describe as precisely for me as possible the
nature of the head wound which you observed on the President?
Dr. CARRICO - The wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in
the right occipitoparietal area. I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm.
in size, more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp
tissue. As I stated before, I believe there was shredded macerated
cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of
the skull attached to the dura.
[quote off]
Seems pretty consistent to me with how he described it in his C-Span
interview.
Yep. And "parietal" means something in medicine. It would have been easy
for the man to say "occiputal" period. But he didn't.

"Back" of head can be mean anything behind the coronal plane that passes
through both ears. It's not a medical term. Of course JFK had a wound int
he back of his head. The front of his head is his face, which was (absent
a few tiny punctures) fine.
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-22 12:53:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Mildly interesting, but more interesting is what he had to say closer
to the time, or at his first opportunity to be recorded.
By all means, point out the differences in what he said then as opposed to
what he said in this interview.
This is what he testified to before the WC regarding the head wound.
[quote on]
Mr. SPECTER - Would you describe as precisely for me as possible the
nature of the head wound which you observed on the President?
Dr. CARRICO - The wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in
the right occipitoparietal area. I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm.
in size, more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp
tissue. As I stated before, I believe there was shredded macerated
cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of
the skull attached to the dura.
[quote off]
Seems pretty consistent to me with how he described it in his C-Span
interview.
Yep. And "parietal" means something in medicine. It would have been easy
for the man to say "occiputal" period. But he didn't.
"Back" of head can be mean anything behind the coronal plane that passes
through both ears. It's not a medical term. Of course JFK had a wound int
he back of his head. The front of his head is his face, which was (absent
a few tiny punctures) fine.
It's hard to have a head wound that massive involve only one part of the
skull.

How do you explain the fracture lines in the forehead? How do you explain
the gauze squares that the nurse packed into the top of the head all the
way up to the front?
mainframetech
2018-03-23 04:26:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Mildly interesting, but more interesting is what he had to say closer
to the time, or at his first opportunity to be recorded.
By all means, point out the differences in what he said then as opposed to
what he said in this interview.
This is what he testified to before the WC regarding the head wound.
[quote on]
Mr. SPECTER - Would you describe as precisely for me as possible the
nature of the head wound which you observed on the President?
Dr. CARRICO - The wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in
the right occipitoparietal area. I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm.
in size, more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp
tissue. As I stated before, I believe there was shredded macerated
cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of
the skull attached to the dura.
[quote off]
Seems pretty consistent to me with how he described it in his C-Span
interview.
Yep. And "parietal" means something in medicine. It would have been easy
for the man to say "occiputal" period. But he didn't.
parietal is the upper portion of the skull which also goes along the
sides to a degree. Here's a skull to help you:

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/courses-images/wp-content/uploads/sites/1940/2017/05/29212646/eueywvxjtjq8doz9v1b0.png

Note that the occipital is below the parietal. In the video Carrico
said parietal-temporal, which is definitely along the side of the head,
but in his earlier description he said "occipital-parietal which can be in
the BOH like this drawing from Tom Robinson, the mortician:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page

Note that the occipital and the parietal are next to each other, and
the example drawing shows a hole that can span both and so be called
'occipital-parietal'.
Post by Steve BH
"Back" of head can be mean anything behind the coronal plane that passes
through both ears. It's not a medical term. Of course JFK had a wound int
he back of his head. The front of his head is his face, which was (absent
a few tiny punctures) fine.
I guess you didn't know there is a quarter inch bullet hole in the
forehead/temple area on JFK. By ENLARGING the photo below, and looking at
the right forehead area just under the hair hanging down, you can see the
bullet hole:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg

Let me know what you see, if you dare look.

Chris
mainframetech
2018-03-22 01:19:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Mildly interesting, but more interesting is what he had to say closer
to the time, or at his first opportunity to be recorded.
By all means, point out the differences in what he said then as opposed to
what he said in this interview.
This is what he testified to before the WC regarding the head wound.
[quote on]
Mr. SPECTER - Would you describe as precisely for me as possible the
nature of the head wound which you observed on the President?
Dr. CARRICO - The wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in
the right occipitoparietal area. I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm.
in size, more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp
tissue. As I stated before, I believe there was shredded macerated
cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of
the skull attached to the dura.
[quote off]
Seems pretty consistent to me with how he described it in his C-Span
interview.
I remember him as showing parietal-temporal with his hands, not
occipital-parietal, which is what he said in the quote from the list of
over 39. Got to 17:25 in the video and you can see it. Surprised you
missed it. Here he is pointing to the real BOH wound from an older shot:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_To8yaQCW4M/UollTaN-8qI/AAAAAAAAw5c/RiqwJovCKkg/s530/198.+%27BOH%27+Wound+Witnesses+(Montage).jpg

He's second from the left on the top line.

Chris
Steve BH
2018-03-21 00:07:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Mildly interesting, but more interesting is what he had to say closer
to the time, or at his first opportunity to be recorded.
Chris
He says it was a large "occiputal-parietal wound" in the WC report. That's
neither back nor side, but both. He did not see a frontal head wound.
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-21 18:31:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Mildly interesting, but more interesting is what he had to say closer
to the time, or at his first opportunity to be recorded.
Chris
He says it was a large "occiputal-parietal wound" in the WC report. That's
neither back nor side, but both. He did not see a frontal head wound.
Occipital extending into the parietal.
mainframetech
2018-03-22 01:18:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Mildly interesting, but more interesting is what he had to say closer
to the time, or at his first opportunity to be recorded.
Chris
He says it was a large "occiputal-parietal wound" in the WC report. That's
neither back nor side, but both. He did not see a frontal head wound.
Occipital-parietal is both back and side, though the drawings of the
witnesses show it more in the back a bit to the right. The frontal wound,
which was seen by a list of people, including 2 of the autopsy team, was
not that easy to see under the hair hanging down. If you have the
courage, you can see it yourself in the one photo that shows it. Look at
the 'stare-of-death' photo and ENLARGE it and then look just under the
hair on the right forehead, and the bullet hole is obvious. Let me know
what you see. Here's the photo:

Loading Image...

You can also do the procedure on ANY online copy of this photo, so you
know that I didn't fix this one.

Chris
bigdog
2018-03-23 04:35:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Mildly interesting, but more interesting is what he had to say closer
to the time, or at his first opportunity to be recorded.
Chris
He says it was a large "occiputal-parietal wound" in the WC report. That's
neither back nor side, but both. He did not see a frontal head wound.
Occipital-parietal is both back and side, though the drawings of the
witnesses show it more in the back a bit to the right. The frontal wound,
which was seen by a list of people, including 2 of the autopsy team, was
not that easy to see under the hair hanging down.
Nobody on the autopsy team described a frontal wound. Jenkins said it was
in the temporal bone and the AR placed it in the parietal bone. Neither is
in the front. You are just trying to force fit the evidence to your
theories.
Post by mainframetech
If you have the
courage, you can see it yourself in the one photo that shows it. Look at
the 'stare-of-death' photo and ENLARGE it and then look just under the
hair on the right forehead, and the bullet hole is obvious. Let me know
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Nobody but you and Marsh see a bullet hole there no matter how many times
you enlarge. You want a bullet hole to be there so you convince yourself
there is one. I guess since you two are the only ones who can see it you
get to decide that it is an entrance wound too.
Post by mainframetech
You can also do the procedure on ANY online copy of this photo, so you
know that I didn't fix this one.
We know you didn't tamper with the photo. If you had it might actually
look like there is a bullet hole there.
mainframetech
2018-03-24 00:17:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Mildly interesting, but more interesting is what he had to say closer
to the time, or at his first opportunity to be recorded.
Chris
He says it was a large "occiputal-parietal wound" in the WC report. That's
neither back nor side, but both. He did not see a frontal head wound.
Occipital-parietal is both back and side, though the drawings of the
witnesses show it more in the back a bit to the right. The frontal wound,
which was seen by a list of people, including 2 of the autopsy team, was
not that easy to see under the hair hanging down.
Nobody on the autopsy team described a frontal wound. Jenkins said it was
in the temporal bone and the AR placed it in the parietal bone. Neither is
in the front. You are just trying to force fit the evidence to your
theories.
As you've been told time and again, there is no theory here. Just
because you hope it was so, doesn't make it so. I've seen the wound in
the forehead/temple area, therefore there is such a wound, and there is no
other wound that measures 5mm in diameter. The one I just spoke of is the
ONLY one. You do not know of any other wound of that diameter, and you
have stated that you have seen nothing of note in the one photograph that
shows the wound that many have seen, so you have nothing to say or add to
the discussion.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If you have the
courage, you can see it yourself in the one photo that shows it. Look at
the 'stare-of-death' photo and ENLARGE it and then look just under the
hair on the right forehead, and the bullet hole is obvious. Let me know
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Nobody but you and Marsh see a bullet hole there no matter how many times
you enlarge. You want a bullet hole to be there so you convince yourself
there is one. I guess since you two are the only ones who can see it you
get to decide that it is an entrance wound too.
WRONG yet again! When will you learn that giving false information
won't solve your problem? There is a list of witnesses that saw the wound
spoken of, which shows your inability to remember simple things as often
as you've been told about them and had it shown to you. Here's the list
again of those in the case that saw the wound:

Dennis David, Bill pitzer, Joe O'Donnell, Tom Robinson, Jerrol Custer
(interview by Walt Brown), James Jenkins, Pierre Finck (from James Jenkins
interview), Seth Kantor, Charles Crenshaw, also probably Father Oscar
Huber, who gave last rites. Said left instead of right eye, probably from
looking down at it from above it would appear on the left of his vision,
but the patient's right.

Of course, among those that saw the wound, 2 of them were on the autopsy
team, one of whom was Pierre Finck, an expert pathologist.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You can also do the procedure on ANY online copy of this photo, so you
know that I didn't fix this one.
We know you didn't tamper with the photo. If you had it might actually
look like there is a bullet hole there.
How many times will you embarrass yourself and say that? Aside from
the list above of witnesses to the wound in question, I've shown that
photo to many people outside of this forum, and they ALL see the bullet
hole and identify it as such, with no hint from me! You've tried this
silly complaint many, many times and been wrong every time.

Chris
bigdog
2018-03-25 18:58:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Mildly interesting, but more interesting is what he had to say closer
to the time, or at his first opportunity to be recorded.
Chris
He says it was a large "occiputal-parietal wound" in the WC report. That's
neither back nor side, but both. He did not see a frontal head wound.
Occipital-parietal is both back and side, though the drawings of the
witnesses show it more in the back a bit to the right. The frontal wound,
which was seen by a list of people, including 2 of the autopsy team, was
not that easy to see under the hair hanging down.
Nobody on the autopsy team described a frontal wound. Jenkins said it was
in the temporal bone and the AR placed it in the parietal bone. Neither is
in the front. You are just trying to force fit the evidence to your
theories.
As you've been told time and again, there is no theory here.
Fantasy is a better description but I was trying to be nice for a change.
I guess I should know better.
Post by mainframetech
Just
because you hope it was so, doesn't make it so. I've seen the wound in
the forehead/temple area, therefore there is such a wound, and there is no
other wound that measures 5mm in diameter.
Just because you convinced yourself there is wound there that by your own
admission you couldn't see for years isn't compelling evidence that there
is actually a wound there. Most people don't see the wound. Most people
can see an intact forehead.
Post by mainframetech
The one I just spoke of is the
ONLY one. You do not know of any other wound of that diameter,
Yes I do. The AR described the exit wound as being in the parietal region.
Jenkins placed it in the adjacent temporal bone. Neither is close to where
you think you see a bullet hole.
Post by mainframetech
and you
have stated that you have seen nothing of note in the one photograph that
shows the wound that many have seen, so you have nothing to say or add to
the discussion.
"many have seen". So far you can only name Marsh as an ally on this.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If you have the
courage, you can see it yourself in the one photo that shows it. Look at
the 'stare-of-death' photo and ENLARGE it and then look just under the
hair on the right forehead, and the bullet hole is obvious. Let me know
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Nobody but you and Marsh see a bullet hole there no matter how many times
you enlarge. You want a bullet hole to be there so you convince yourself
there is one. I guess since you two are the only ones who can see it you
get to decide that it is an entrance wound too.
WRONG yet again! When will you learn that giving false information
won't solve your problem? There is a list of witnesses that saw the wound
spoken of,
Yes there is. They just saw it in a different place.
Post by mainframetech
which shows your inability to remember simple things as often
as you've been told about them and had it shown to you. Here's the list
Dennis David, Bill pitzer, Joe O'Donnell, Tom Robinson, Jerrol Custer
(interview by Walt Brown), James Jenkins, Pierre Finck (from James Jenkins
interview), Seth Kantor, Charles Crenshaw, also probably Father Oscar
Huber, who gave last rites. Said left instead of right eye, probably from
looking down at it from above it would appear on the left of his vision,
but the patient's right.
Which one said it was in the forehead?
Post by mainframetech
Of course, among those that saw the wound, 2 of them were on the autopsy
team, one of whom was Pierre Finck, an expert pathologist.
Jenkins is on record as saying it was in the temporal bone. Jenkins said
Finck saw the wound but there is no record of Finck saying it was in the
forehead either. Finck signed the AR which said it was in the parietal
bone.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You can also do the procedure on ANY online copy of this photo, so you
know that I didn't fix this one.
We know you didn't tamper with the photo. If you had it might actually
look like there is a bullet hole there.
How many times will you embarrass yourself and say that?
So far zero.
Post by mainframetech
Aside from
the list above of witnesses to the wound in question, I've shown that
photo to many people outside of this forum, and they ALL see the bullet
hole and identify it as such, with no hint from me! You've tried this
silly complaint many, many times and been wrong every time.
I'm sure all your imaginary friends see your imaginary bullet hole.
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-26 15:17:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Mildly interesting, but more interesting is what he had to say closer
to the time, or at his first opportunity to be recorded.
Chris
He says it was a large "occiputal-parietal wound" in the WC report. That's
neither back nor side, but both. He did not see a frontal head wound.
Occipital-parietal is both back and side, though the drawings of the
witnesses show it more in the back a bit to the right. The frontal wound,
which was seen by a list of people, including 2 of the autopsy team, was
not that easy to see under the hair hanging down.
Nobody on the autopsy team described a frontal wound. Jenkins said it was
in the temporal bone and the AR placed it in the parietal bone. Neither is
in the front. You are just trying to force fit the evidence to your
theories.
As you've been told time and again, there is no theory here.
Fantasy is a better description but I was trying to be nice for a change.
I guess I should know better.
Post by mainframetech
Just
because you hope it was so, doesn't make it so. I've seen the wound in
the forehead/temple area, therefore there is such a wound, and there is no
other wound that measures 5mm in diameter.
Just because you convinced yourself there is wound there that by your own
admission you couldn't see for years isn't compelling evidence that there
is actually a wound there. Most people don't see the wound. Most people
can see an intact forehead.
Post by mainframetech
The one I just spoke of is the
ONLY one. You do not know of any other wound of that diameter,
Yes I do. The AR described the exit wound as being in the parietal region.
Jenkins placed it in the adjacent temporal bone. Neither is close to where
you think you see a bullet hole.
Post by mainframetech
and you
have stated that you have seen nothing of note in the one photograph that
shows the wound that many have seen, so you have nothing to say or add to
the discussion.
"many have seen". So far you can only name Marsh as an ally on this.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If you have the
courage, you can see it yourself in the one photo that shows it. Look at
the 'stare-of-death' photo and ENLARGE it and then look just under the
hair on the right forehead, and the bullet hole is obvious. Let me know
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Nobody but you and Marsh see a bullet hole there no matter how many times
you enlarge. You want a bullet hole to be there so you convince yourself
there is one. I guess since you two are the only ones who can see it you
get to decide that it is an entrance wound too.
WRONG yet again! When will you learn that giving false information
won't solve your problem? There is a list of witnesses that saw the wound
spoken of,
Yes there is. They just saw it in a different place.
Post by mainframetech
which shows your inability to remember simple things as often
as you've been told about them and had it shown to you. Here's the list
Dennis David, Bill pitzer, Joe O'Donnell, Tom Robinson, Jerrol Custer
(interview by Walt Brown), James Jenkins, Pierre Finck (from James Jenkins
interview), Seth Kantor, Charles Crenshaw, also probably Father Oscar
Huber, who gave last rites. Said left instead of right eye, probably from
looking down at it from above it would appear on the left of his vision,
but the patient's right.
Which one said it was in the forehead?
Post by mainframetech
Of course, among those that saw the wound, 2 of them were on the autopsy
team, one of whom was Pierre Finck, an expert pathologist.
Jenkins is on record as saying it was in the temporal bone. Jenkins said
Finck saw the wound but there is no record of Finck saying it was in the
forehead either. Finck signed the AR which said it was in the parietal
bone.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You can also do the procedure on ANY online copy of this photo, so you
know that I didn't fix this one.
We know you didn't tamper with the photo. If you had it might actually
look like there is a bullet hole there.
How many times will you embarrass yourself and say that?
So far zero.
Post by mainframetech
Aside from
the list above of witnesses to the wound in question, I've shown that
photo to many people outside of this forum, and they ALL see the bullet
hole and identify it as such, with no hint from me! You've tried this
silly complaint many, many times and been wrong every time.
I'm sure all your imaginary friends see your imaginary bullet hole.
Can you see the imaginary bullet hole the WC said was near the EOP?
Do you still try to be a WC defender?
mainframetech
2018-03-27 02:21:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Mildly interesting, but more interesting is what he had to say closer
to the time, or at his first opportunity to be recorded.
Chris
He says it was a large "occiputal-parietal wound" in the WC report. That's
neither back nor side, but both. He did not see a frontal head wound.
Occipital-parietal is both back and side, though the drawings of the
witnesses show it more in the back a bit to the right. The frontal wound,
which was seen by a list of people, including 2 of the autopsy team, was
not that easy to see under the hair hanging down.
Nobody on the autopsy team described a frontal wound. Jenkins said it was
in the temporal bone and the AR placed it in the parietal bone. Neither is
in the front. You are just trying to force fit the evidence to your
theories.
As you've been told time and again, there is no theory here.
Fantasy is a better description but I was trying to be nice for a change.
I guess I should know better.
Post by mainframetech
Just
because you hope it was so, doesn't make it so. I've seen the wound in
the forehead/temple area, therefore there is such a wound, and there is no
other wound that measures 5mm in diameter.
Just because you convinced yourself there is wound there that by your own
admission you couldn't see for years isn't compelling evidence that there
is actually a wound there. Most people don't see the wound. Most people
can see an intact forehead.
Post by mainframetech
The one I just spoke of is the
ONLY one. You do not know of any other wound of that diameter,
Yes I do. The AR described the exit wound as being in the parietal region.
Jenkins placed it in the adjacent temporal bone. Neither is close to where
you think you see a bullet hole.
You're a riot! So like I said you do not know of any other wound of
5mm in diameter.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and you
have stated that you have seen nothing of note in the one photograph that
shows the wound that many have seen, so you have nothing to say or add to
the discussion.
"many have seen". So far you can only name Marsh as an ally on this.
WRONG yet again! We've been over this and you're repeating everything
we've already covered. We'll have to agree to disagree.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If you have the
courage, you can see it yourself in the one photo that shows it. Look at
the 'stare-of-death' photo and ENLARGE it and then look just under the
hair on the right forehead, and the bullet hole is obvious. Let me know
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Nobody but you and Marsh see a bullet hole there no matter how many times
you enlarge. You want a bullet hole to be there so you convince yourself
there is one. I guess since you two are the only ones who can see it you
get to decide that it is an entrance wound too.
WRONG yet again! When will you learn that giving false information
won't solve your problem? There is a list of witnesses that saw the wound
spoken of,
Yes there is. They just saw it in a different place.
Too much repetition from you. I'm outa here.

Chris
bigdog
2018-03-27 23:55:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Mildly interesting, but more interesting is what he had to say closer
to the time, or at his first opportunity to be recorded.
Chris
He says it was a large "occiputal-parietal wound" in the WC report. That's
neither back nor side, but both. He did not see a frontal head wound.
Occipital-parietal is both back and side, though the drawings of the
witnesses show it more in the back a bit to the right. The frontal wound,
which was seen by a list of people, including 2 of the autopsy team, was
not that easy to see under the hair hanging down.
Nobody on the autopsy team described a frontal wound. Jenkins said it was
in the temporal bone and the AR placed it in the parietal bone. Neither is
in the front. You are just trying to force fit the evidence to your
theories.
As you've been told time and again, there is no theory here.
Fantasy is a better description but I was trying to be nice for a change.
I guess I should know better.
Post by mainframetech
Just
because you hope it was so, doesn't make it so. I've seen the wound in
the forehead/temple area, therefore there is such a wound, and there is no
other wound that measures 5mm in diameter.
Just because you convinced yourself there is wound there that by your own
admission you couldn't see for years isn't compelling evidence that there
is actually a wound there. Most people don't see the wound. Most people
can see an intact forehead.
Post by mainframetech
The one I just spoke of is the
ONLY one. You do not know of any other wound of that diameter,
Yes I do. The AR described the exit wound as being in the parietal region.
Jenkins placed it in the adjacent temporal bone. Neither is close to where
you think you see a bullet hole.
You're a riot! So like I said you do not know of any other wound of
5mm in diameter.
You need more than one?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and you
have stated that you have seen nothing of note in the one photograph that
shows the wound that many have seen, so you have nothing to say or add to
the discussion.
"many have seen". So far you can only name Marsh as an ally on this.
WRONG yet again! We've been over this and you're repeating everything
we've already covered. We'll have to agree to disagree.
We will until you can name somebody other than Marsh.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If you have the
courage, you can see it yourself in the one photo that shows it. Look at
the 'stare-of-death' photo and ENLARGE it and then look just under the
hair on the right forehead, and the bullet hole is obvious. Let me know
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Nobody but you and Marsh see a bullet hole there no matter how many times
you enlarge. You want a bullet hole to be there so you convince yourself
there is one. I guess since you two are the only ones who can see it you
get to decide that it is an entrance wound too.
WRONG yet again! When will you learn that giving false information
won't solve your problem? There is a list of witnesses that saw the wound
spoken of,
Yes there is. They just saw it in a different place.
Too much repetition from you. I'm outa here.
Good move.
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-29 00:35:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Mildly interesting, but more interesting is what he had to say closer
to the time, or at his first opportunity to be recorded.
Chris
He says it was a large "occiputal-parietal wound" in the WC report. That's
neither back nor side, but both. He did not see a frontal head wound.
Occipital-parietal is both back and side, though the drawings of the
witnesses show it more in the back a bit to the right. The frontal wound,
which was seen by a list of people, including 2 of the autopsy team, was
not that easy to see under the hair hanging down.
Nobody on the autopsy team described a frontal wound. Jenkins said it was
in the temporal bone and the AR placed it in the parietal bone. Neither is
in the front. You are just trying to force fit the evidence to your
theories.
As you've been told time and again, there is no theory here.
Fantasy is a better description but I was trying to be nice for a change.
I guess I should know better.
Post by mainframetech
Just
because you hope it was so, doesn't make it so. I've seen the wound in
the forehead/temple area, therefore there is such a wound, and there is no
other wound that measures 5mm in diameter.
Just because you convinced yourself there is wound there that by your own
admission you couldn't see for years isn't compelling evidence that there
is actually a wound there. Most people don't see the wound. Most people
can see an intact forehead.
Post by mainframetech
The one I just spoke of is the
ONLY one. You do not know of any other wound of that diameter,
Yes I do. The AR described the exit wound as being in the parietal region.
Jenkins placed it in the adjacent temporal bone. Neither is close to where
you think you see a bullet hole.
You're a riot! So like I said you do not know of any other wound of
5mm in diameter.
You need more than one?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and you
have stated that you have seen nothing of note in the one photograph that
shows the wound that many have seen, so you have nothing to say or add to
the discussion.
"many have seen". So far you can only name Marsh as an ally on this.
WRONG yet again! We've been over this and you're repeating everything
we've already covered. We'll have to agree to disagree.
We will until you can name somebody other than Marsh.
I did already. But you refuse to admit ANY fact because you are a WC
defender. You just keep repeating the same old falsehoods every year.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If you have the
courage, you can see it yourself in the one photo that shows it. Look at
the 'stare-of-death' photo and ENLARGE it and then look just under the
hair on the right forehead, and the bullet hole is obvious. Let me know
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Nobody but you and Marsh see a bullet hole there no matter how many times
you enlarge. You want a bullet hole to be there so you convince yourself
there is one. I guess since you two are the only ones who can see it you
get to decide that it is an entrance wound too.
WRONG yet again! When will you learn that giving false information
won't solve your problem? There is a list of witnesses that saw the wound
spoken of,
Yes there is. They just saw it in a different place.
Too much repetition from you. I'm outa here.
Good move.
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-29 02:29:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Mildly interesting, but more interesting is what he had to say closer
to the time, or at his first opportunity to be recorded.
Chris
He says it was a large "occiputal-parietal wound" in the WC report. That's
neither back nor side, but both. He did not see a frontal head wound.
Occipital-parietal is both back and side, though the drawings of the
witnesses show it more in the back a bit to the right. The frontal wound,
which was seen by a list of people, including 2 of the autopsy team, was
not that easy to see under the hair hanging down.
Nobody on the autopsy team described a frontal wound. Jenkins said it was
in the temporal bone and the AR placed it in the parietal bone. Neither is
in the front. You are just trying to force fit the evidence to your
theories.
As you've been told time and again, there is no theory here.
Fantasy is a better description but I was trying to be nice for a change.
I guess I should know better.
Post by mainframetech
Just
because you hope it was so, doesn't make it so. I've seen the wound in
the forehead/temple area, therefore there is such a wound, and there is no
other wound that measures 5mm in diameter.
Just because you convinced yourself there is wound there that by your own
admission you couldn't see for years isn't compelling evidence that there
is actually a wound there. Most people don't see the wound. Most people
can see an intact forehead.
Post by mainframetech
The one I just spoke of is the
ONLY one. You do not know of any other wound of that diameter,
Yes I do. The AR described the exit wound as being in the parietal region.
Jenkins placed it in the adjacent temporal bone. Neither is close to where
you think you see a bullet hole.
You're a riot! So like I said you do not know of any other wound of
5mm in diameter.
There was no wound that was 5mm in diameter.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and you
have stated that you have seen nothing of note in the one photograph that
shows the wound that many have seen, so you have nothing to say or add to
the discussion.
"many have seen". So far you can only name Marsh as an ally on this.
WRONG yet again! We've been over this and you're repeating everything
we've already covered. We'll have to agree to disagree.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If you have the
courage, you can see it yourself in the one photo that shows it. Look at
the 'stare-of-death' photo and ENLARGE it and then look just under the
hair on the right forehead, and the bullet hole is obvious. Let me know
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Nobody but you and Marsh see a bullet hole there no matter how many times
you enlarge. You want a bullet hole to be there so you convince yourself
there is one. I guess since you two are the only ones who can see it you
get to decide that it is an entrance wound too.
WRONG yet again! When will you learn that giving false information
won't solve your problem? There is a list of witnesses that saw the wound
spoken of,
Yes there is. They just saw it in a different place.
Too much repetition from you. I'm outa here.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-24 15:40:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mitch Todd
Something worth watching, not merely because it's Carrico, but
also because he goes into detail as to ER procedure in dealing
with a badly injured patient, and what he was going through his
mind as he worked on JFK
http://youtu.be/G7ngt-SqGv0
Mildly interesting, but more interesting is what he had to say closer
to the time, or at his first opportunity to be recorded.
Chris
He says it was a large "occiputal-parietal wound" in the WC report. That's
neither back nor side, but both. He did not see a frontal head wound.
Occipital-parietal is both back and side, though the drawings of the
witnesses show it more in the back a bit to the right. The frontal wound,
which was seen by a list of people, including 2 of the autopsy team, was
not that easy to see under the hair hanging down.
Nobody on the autopsy team described a frontal wound. Jenkins said it was
in the temporal bone and the AR placed it in the parietal bone. Neither is
in the front. You are just trying to force fit the evidence to your
theories.
Post by mainframetech
If you have the
courage, you can see it yourself in the one photo that shows it. Look at
the 'stare-of-death' photo and ENLARGE it and then look just under the
hair on the right forehead, and the bullet hole is obvious. Let me know
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Nobody but you and Marsh see a bullet hole there no matter how many times
you enlarge. You want a bullet hole to be there so you convince yourself
there is one. I guess since you two are the only ones who can see it you
get to decide that it is an entrance wound too.
Post by mainframetech
You can also do the procedure on ANY online copy of this photo, so you
know that I didn't fix this one.
We know you didn't tamper with the photo. If you had it might actually
look like there is a bullet hole there.
Have you ever seen a bullet hole?
Loading...