Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogI noticed you didn't even attempt to refute my contention that all of the
forensic evidence and all of the expert testimony supports the WCR.
It is generally understood that I would automatically reject anything
that you put out, since you're a WCR lover.
Of course you would. What I put out is the truth and that is at cross
purposes with your beliefs.
Post by mainframetechThat means most of what you
might put out is wrong. And as you well know, but can't admit, most of
the "forensic evidence and expert testimony" was led in the wrong
direction and they were unaware of it. Their input is useless here, since
they were led away from the forensic evidence.
So tell us what forensic evidence they were led away from? Oh, wait. I
forgot to say please. Please tell us what forensic evidence they were led
away from.
You mean that you didn't know? They were kept from the full sets of
the autopsy photos and X-rays, and of course, they were kept from the
body.
JFK's body had been in the ground for 15 years before the HSCA released
it's findings. I suppose you think digging him up would have told them
what they couldn't see in the photos and x-rays.
I can practically guarantee it.
Sounds like an empty boast to me.
Post by mainframetechThey could NOT see in any photos or
X-rays that were left, what the truth was about the wounds and the cause
od death for JFK.
But you think you can looking at just one photo. Amazing.
It was explained to you, so why are you doubting? If the medical
panels had had a chance to se the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area,
then their conclusions would be simple. Of course, you wouldn't have any
input on that, since you can't se anything abnormal in the correct photo.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechIf they had, they would have had a much different cause
of death.
So you think they would have reached the same conclusion you did. Even
more amazing.
It's so sad that you think what I've described to you is amazing, when
the simplest average person has made that same conclusion when I showed
the bullet hole to them, without giving them any clue in advance, only
telling them it was JFK's body. So you've got a long way to go to catch
up to the normal average person.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechSo they have no input here.
But you do? Hilarious!
Well of course you have to say that, given that you have no input on
this part of the case. But the evidence once seen by even the average
person is clearly tells the cause of death. A shame there's no way for
you to know what I'm saying is the truth. But don't worry, you always
have the everlovin' WCR.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechHowever, if the body had been
exhumed they would have seen the proof of the bullet hole in the
forehead/temple area and the lack of a bullet hole in the occiput, plus a
'large hole' in the occiput stuffed by Tom Robinson with material.
Just because you think you see something in one low resolution photo is no
reason to think competent people would see the same thing.
WRONG! Average people have already seen the bullet hole and
interpreted it accordingly as a bullet hole, and they suddenly stop as it
dawns on them as to what it means! And you can stop playing your tired
old 'expert' card. It is a deuce. The bullet hole in the forehead/temple
area has been easily identified by average people. Just because you're
the outlier doesn't mean the bullet hole isn't there. It is there for
everyone else but you.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechThey
might even have been able to see all over again that there was no path for
a bullet from the pleura to the throat wound. But there was no doubt that
the body would not be exhumed in this case.
Keep those ridiculous assumptions coming. Their a never ending source of
amusement.
Does it bother you that I believe that there won't be an exhumation of
JFK's body? Are you losing it? You're trying to argue with your opinion,
which is weak and useless.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechThere was no exhumation which would have proved the AR was wrong.
They were also kept away from the Bethesda personnel who knew there had
been a scam.
Not one of those people whom you rely on had told their tales to anyone
before the HSCA had already closed shop. There was no reason to speak to
any of those people. They had the photos and the x-rays.
WRONG! And as usual you've forgotten those "people" were under an
'order of silence' put on them by the Navy before the HSCA, and I believe
many stayed unsure during the HSCA doings. The HSCA themselves were
caught lying about the statements of the people in the Morgue gallery.
I'm not sure the HSCA can be trusted after that.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechWRONG! Stop trying to insert any photos and X-rays.
Right. Why should we insert real evidence into the conversation when we
have your wild assumptions to go on.
Because you have no real evidence. The photos and X-rays that showed
the truth were missing. That's why.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechThe important
ones were NOT present for the medical panels to view, and in some cases
the panels were given phony drawings by Ida Dox with a fake bullet hole in
one of them.
Tell us how you determined which ones were the important ones and how you
determined it was the important ones that were missing. This should be
good.
You're getting ridiculous once again. Too much WCR I think. I've told
you many times which photos were important and why. Especially the one
that has to be ENLARGED, which you wouldn't know about, since you're the
only one that can't see anything in it. Why are you repeating everything?
Is it in hopes the answers will change if you keep asking? Forget it.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechThey could not make any decent decisions without the views
that the prosectors had of the internals of the body.
You haven't had "the views that the prosectors had of the internals of the
body" yet you think you can make "decent decisions" and teams of the top
medical examiners in the country could not. Too funny.
WRONG! You're getting ridiculous again. I've explained to you and
shown you the proof of what the prosectors saw in the body when the organs
were removed that proved that the back wound bullet was a 'short shot',
which never penetrated more than an inch or so into the back of JFK.
Stop repeating everything. If you have Alzheimer's it's not going to get
better, only worse.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechAnd the proof of
that is that the cause of death would be different if they had seen what
the prosectors had seen.
Right. They all would have reached the same conclusion you did by looking
at one photo. That is laugh out loud funny.
WRONG! There was more evidence than one photo. Use your head for a
change. Ad usual you forgot that the prosectors saw the verification
inside the body when the organs were removed and they saw the proof that
the back wound bullet had NOT gone out the throat wound, it stopped at the
pleura and right lung. You tried for days to argue about that and lost
after you were unable to change the information coming from the witnesses.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogneeded. The x-rays' of JFK's skull showed a fracture lines radiating out
from an entrance wound in the back of the skull. They also saw inward
beveling of the wound in the back of JFK's skull. Both of those are proof
positive of a BOH entry wound.
David Mantik, PhD examined the X-rays that were still available at
NARA and it was decided that there were many missing and they were not the
right X-rays.
Oh, it was decided? Who decided that? Let me guess. Mantik. A radiation
oncologist. Why turn to people whose profession is forensic medicine when
we have a guy whose specialty is treating cancer patients. <chuckle>
WRONG! You tried that ploy before and lost. Mantik had far more
background than just radiation oncologist. I read off his accomplishments
to you from the Lancer cv. Of course, you need to put down witnesses as
much as possible because they prove you and the WCR very wrong.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechThe skull X-rays were all copies, suggesting that someone
had faked many of them.
At last. We play the evidence-was-altered card. Eventually it is the card
that all conspiracy hobbyists are forced to play because all the forensic
evidence is against them.
Ah, You were asked to list the "forensic evidence" against Oswald, but
you were unable to do that. So at this point, there is none.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechThe X-ray technician was consulted and made it
clear that many X-rays that he took were NOT in the small batch of images
that they had at NARA. But you keep trying to pull the wool over people's
eyes by pretending that ALL photos and X-rays were present and everything
about the autopsy was shown to the panels. It was not and you know it.
Did he say the ones on file were fakes? Didn't think so.
X-rays? Yes, he did based on a lot of scientific examination of them.
And as far as the photos that were 'leaked' of the autopsy, you can be
sure they do not show what was actually present in the morgue that
evening. The autopsy team members couldn't recognize the head rest that
was used in those photos, and they (corroboration) said that they never
used that type of head rest, they had a different one that was always used
for autopsies. That alone makes the photos suspect.
Post by bigdogThe ones on file showed the fracture lines radiating out from the BOH. A
sure fire sign of an entrance wound there. That's not my opinion. That's
not the opinion of a radiation oncologist. That's the opinion of Dr. Peter
Cummings, one of the foremost authorities on the forensics of head wounds.
Tell us why we would have fracture lines radiating from the BOH if that
isn't where the bullet entered.
We're not even sure that the X-rays that are left in the NARA archives
are of JFK, and they are missing a number of plates that the technicians
know they had taken.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechYou can whine all you want about photos or
Post by bigdogx-rays being missing. Their findings were based on what they did see and
what they did see in those photos and x-rays left no doubt in their minds
that JFK had been shot twice from behind.
That shows your inability to use simple logic. You may be right that
their findings were based on what they saw, but what they saw was NOT the
complete set of photos as stated by the photographers, and there are
questions about the X-rays too.
Why would they need a complete set if what they saw was enough to
establish that JFK was shot twice from behind. What reason do you have to
believe that the photos and x-rays you claim are missing would have
indicated a different conclusion than the ones that were made based on the
photos and x-rays they did see. How could the alleged missing photos
indicate a different truth than the ones that were on file.
WRONG! Hard to believe that you were ever a programmer. No logic.
For example: If you have s et of photos, but there is one missing that
shows a bullet hole in the forehead, and another one that shows bruises on
the pleura, and no path through it, then the remaining photo will give a
very wrong impression of what killed JFK. They centered on above and
behind because the prosectors were ordered to say that, and there was no
photo to counteract the wrong conclusion that was handed to the panels.
That is why the missing photos and X-rays give the wrong impression.
Fortunately there are other ways to find out the truth, but they weren't
available to folks back in 1963.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechThey could not possibly come to a correct
decision without the full information that was available during the
autopsy, and which was covered up by orders to the prosectors. Their
input is useless here.
But you can? You have no idea how funny that is. You think you with no
training, no experience, and only a small fraction of the photos and
x-rays the review panels had and not even good copies can still come to a
better conclusion regarding the nature of JFK's wounds than the top
medical examiners in the country. If there actually are any lurkers
following this thread, do you think any of the would take you seriously
when you make silly claims like that?
Try and realize how embarrassed you should be when you laugh at all
the wrong places. You still show a complete lack of logic as to the
missing photos. One of the photos was there, but they apparently didn't
ENLARGE it to se the bullet wound in it. Other photos would have changed
their minds but were missing. If you think real hard, it may come to you
why it mattered that some photos were missing.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechOh give up the phony crap. You'd think you were amputated at the neck
with your constant need for 'experts'. A small hole is an entry when
matched with a large hole as an exit blowout.
The blowout was all along the upper right side of the head. There was a
small entrance wound in the back of the head which members of the review
panel could see in the photos and x-rays, far more than the few that got
leaked to the public.
Oh crap! You've had it explained to you about the supposed damage to
the side and TOP of the head. It was caused by Humes and Boswell at
6:35pm in the morgue with witnesses watching the first part of the
clandestine 'work'.
Just because you explained it that way doesn't make it a true statement.
WRONG! I also included the words of the 2 witnesses, or did you throw
them under the bus?
Pretty much. Witnesses don't prove anything by themselves, particularly
witnesses who are telling what they remembered from decades earlier. You
need forensic evidence to corroborate witnesses.
Bullshit! Evidence can and has been manipulated in this case,
You must have a whole deck of "the evidence was falsified" cards to play.
Tell it to the plotters, since they created the situation.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechand by
orders other information was hidden.
Orders you have never been able to show any evidence of.
WRONG! I have shown that there was no doubt at all that orders were
issued to the prosectors as to the conclusions they would put in the AR.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechAnd once modified, forensic evidence
stays modified, whereas a person can change their mind and not hold to a
lie.
And all you can do is claim the forensic evidence was modified because you
have no evidence that happened. But you need an excuse to dismiss that
forensic evidence so you just made one up.
WHOA! You have claimed that all kinds of witnesses are lying or don't
know what they are talking about. Don't tell me I can't do the same for
your phony evidence too. However, every time I have dumped on evidence,.
I have explained why. In your case you were unable to tell why you didn't
like a witness except your opinion.
Post by bigdogThat isn't forensic evidence. I don't think you understand the term if you
think it is.
Post by mainframetechIs that solid forensic evidence,
NO!!!.
Post by mainframetechor is it possible that a lie was passed
on and not the true evidence?
Some lies were passed on. Rischel. Good. Hoffman. Custer. The people you
put your faith in.
Ah, only MY people lied. Yours were true blue! Suuure!
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechYou and your 'forensic evidence' is a large
thicket you've opened up. What you want to call 'forensic evidence' is
really what some person told you or wrote down, and we have no more idea
of whether that is true than something a witness said they saw. It a
bullshit snowstorm that you're pretending is real.
You just confirmed that you have no idea what forensic evidence is. It is
physical evidence. Fingerprints. Fibers. Photos. X-rays. Bullets. Shells.
Firearms. All examples of forensic evidence.
Exactly! That's what I was talking about. Some one wrote down that
there were 3 shells left at the 6th floor window. But all you know is
that a "person" told that to a note pad, and then a "person" took that
note pad and wrote what was there somewhere else, and sooner or later, all
this writing got to you and you believed every word of it, no matter how
many hands it had been through! There were many things that the
prosectors said DURING the autopsy that were 18o degrees different from
what was put in the AR, both statements were made by "persons", and you
picked out the one you wanted to believe which was the one that had the
highest chance of being ordered by a "person" and wasn't true.
We have lots of that. And it
Post by bigdogall points at Oswald. You have none of it that points to anyone else's
involvement in the crime.
No, you have NONE of that, because I asked you for a list of the
"forensic evidence" and you chose not to provide it. So as far as I'm
concerned, there is none you could list, or you were afraid to list it.
You also don't have any witnesses who gave
Post by bigdogstatements, either sworn or unsworn that were made anywhere near the time
of the assassination. Ever person in whom you have placed your faith came
up with stories many years later. In some cases decades later. Yet you
find them more compelling than the forensic evidence that is still on
file, the expert testimony given regarding that body of forensic evidence,
and statement made by witnesses shortly after the assassination.
How foolish is it to act like the 'order of silence' of the Navy wasn't
the cause of some of the witnesses not being able to talk until late in
the game. And that fear was the reason for others to avoid saying things
until later too. Yet all those witnesses have corroboration and have
shown no reason to lie.
It's the
Post by bigdogreason I told you in another thread that your problem is your inability to
weight evidence. You put your faith in the silly stuff and ignore the
solid evidence. But since you desperately want to believe there was a
conspiracy, what other choice do you have.
WRONG! You've sung that song before hoping that all the LNs will
gather around you and swear to whatever you want from them. My abilities
aren't at issue, since I prove my points with data other than my opinion,
which is what you often use.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechNothing I believe about
Post by bigdogOswald's guilt is based solely on eyewitness testimony because I know how
unreliable that is. It is only when those eyewitness accounts are
corroborate by forensic evidence that I find any witness' account
compelling. You don't have that luxury because you don't have any forensic
evidence that backs up the people you want to believe.
You have no 'forensic evidence;' either. Go ahead and list the
'forensic evidence' you have for Oswald's guilt.
You really want to go there? Let's start with your favorite whipping boy.
Howard Brennan. Here is the evidence that corroborates him.
1. Shells were found at the very location where he said he saw a person
firing the last shot.
Shells do NOT corroborate anything said by Brennan, since he didn't
name the count of shells. And the sound of shots was known by everyone.
The shells are "forensic Evidence" but do not prove anything other than
they POSSIBLY were related to shots fired at the motorcade. No bullets
were ever matched to them. Not much evidence there, or proof that Oswald
did anything wrong.
Post by bigdog2. Those shells were positively matched to a rifle that was found
elsewhere on the floor.
Not much evidence there, or proof that Oswald did anything wrong. Again,
so what?
Post by bigdog3. A paper trail established that the rifle belonged to the person Brennan
identified as the shooter.
Ownership of the rifle does not convict anyone. Since the rifle was
manipulated to be there. Not much evidence there, or proof that Oswald
did anything wrong.
Post by bigdog4. That person's palm print was on the barrel of the rifle.
Since the rifle belonged to Oswald, it would be expected to be there.
Not much evidence there, or proof that Oswald did anything wrong.
Post by bigdog5. That person's fingerprints were found at the location where Brennan saw
the shots fired from.
Oswald worked there and probably handled boxes all over the TSBD on
many floors. Not much evidence there, or proof that Oswald did anything
wrong.
Post by bigdog6. That person's fingerprints were on a bag found near the location where
Brennan saw the shooter and the bag was long enough to hold the
disassembled rifle.
It possible that Oswald brought the bag to bring the rifle into the TSBD
and hide it. Not much evidence there, or proof that Oswald did anything
wrong.
Post by bigdog7. Fiber in the bag matched the blanket in which the rifle's owner kept
his rifle stored in.
Since the rifle was kept in the blanket, that would be expected. Not
much evidence there, or proof that Oswald did anything wrong.
Post by bigdog8. Fiber's matching the shirt worn by the rifle's owner when he was
arrested were found on the bullet plate of the rifle.
Id you mean the butt plate, it was his rifle, so it might be expected
that at one or more opportunities he put it to his shoulder to se how it
felt, or something similar. Not much evidence there, or proof that Oswald
did anything wrong.
Post by bigdogThat's 8 pieces of corroborating evidence for Brennan's account and there
is no doubt you will come up with 8 excuses to dismiss each and every
piece.
Not one thing there corroborates anything that Brennan said except
that Brennan said he saw a rifle at the window. We don't even know if the
rifle he saw was the same rifle because he said there was no scope on it,
but the rifle in question HAD a scope. Not much evidence there, or proof
that Oswald did anything wrong.
A complete waste of time as it was the first time you pretended there
was some GOOD evidence found that Oswald was guilty. But the way things
showed themselves in the case, it looked more like Oswald was duped into
bringing in the rifle and so made himself look like the killer, when he
wasn't even at the window when the shots were fired.
The items you named were indeed "forensic Evidence" but not Brennan nor
his statements. So you've made an error in giving an example of "Forensic
Evidence".
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechAnd then show me where
someone told us something, or wrote it down somewhere. That's like a
witness writing something down. It could be true, or it could be a lie or
scam.
SS agent Bennett wrote in his notes aboard AF1 that he saw the second shot
strike JFK in the back after he heard the first shot while scanning the
crowd to the right of the limo. It would be hard to dispute that since his
notes were written before the autopsy and it was discovered that JFK had a
wound in his back. Nobody at Parkland ever knew that because JFK was on
his back from the time he was taken out of the limo until he was placed in
the casket.
Whether that agent was lying or being truthful doesn't have much of a
bearing on the case to me.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechYou have been unable to refute the sworn testimony
and statements of the witnesses to that 'work'.
People far more knowledgeable than you or I have refuted it. Dr. Cyril
Wecht said it couldn't be done without being completely obvious that it
had been done.
Which only means that it was done better than he knew.
So you think you are a better authority than Wecht is on what was
possible?
I know what's possible from the statements of witnesses.
Because you'll believe just about any cockamamie story.
WRONG! You're the reader of the WCR, look to yourself for believing
silly things.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechWecht didn't
have that luxury.
You mean he didn't have the luxury of being as gullible as you are.
Post by mainframetechHe had no more than the panels were allowed to see,
whereas the witnesses saw the events unfolding in front of them. And the
guilty admitted it in front of a gallery of people by their actions in
trying to cover up what had been done way before the autopsy.
Is that really the best you can do?
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechI've found
much evidence that he was never allowed to see or hear. Doesn't mean I
know better than him, it just means that more evidence has come out since
he was involved.
Your evidence is nothing more than wild claims by a witness who claims to
have seen something done that couldn't have been done.
You see, you failed again. It's NOT A witness, it's two witnesses,
corroborating each other. And you've just insulted an X-ray Technician
and a mortician with your wild claims who were present and knew far more
than you about what happened at 6:35pm when no one was around from the
family.
Are you claiming the mortician saw clandestine surgery being done to JFK's
head? Are you claiming the mortician saw a bullet fall from JFK's back and
be scooped up by Finck?
Custer saw the bullet as per his sworn testimony which you are very
prone to believing as you said. Robinson saw the damage to the head being
done during the clandestine 'work' on the head of JFK. He was
corroborated by the sworn testimony of Edward Reed, X-ray technician.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechThere are over 40+
witnesses to the 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK, and none of them spoke of
a hole that extended to the side or TOP of the head.
That's because the flaps had been closed, most likely by Jackie during the
ride to Parkland.
WRONG! We've been over the phony flaps that were in your imagination.
They were proved to be more of your fantasies by the nurses that cleaned
the body and the head before wrapping it and putting it in the Bronze
casket. It would be impossible to handle and wipe the head and not know
of the damage of any 'flaps'.
We see the flaps in the Z-film. We see them again in the leaked autopsy
photos. The flaps were there at Parkland too but because the flaps were
claused and JFK was bleeding profusely from the head the ER team never
realized the extent of the skull defect.
"WE" don't see squat in the Z-film. It's been shown that it was
altered, and can't be relied on.
Keep playing those "evidence-was-faked" cards.
Have to keep it true.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechEvidence that has been manipulated is
far harder to work with than any witnesses. The only thing you could see
in the Z-film is your fantasies writ large.
You seem to have a case of Rossleyitis in this last sentence.
I don't point out your frequent typos to keep things moving along.
You want to stop every moment for my typos? Sounds like desperation.
Picking at anything when your losing.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechWhy are you repeating this
whole conversation?
Because it is the truth. You should try it sometime.
Bull. That's not the reason is my opinion, it's your hope something
will change if you keep saying the same thing over and over.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechIt was told to you that when the nurse (Diana Bowron)
wiped the head and cleaned it and wrapped it, that there was no way she
could do that and not feel the damage of multiple flaps and bones out of
joint in the head. I know from personal experience handling a head in
that condition. You cannot miss the obvious movement of the bones.
Just because you tell me something is no reason for me to believe it. In
fact it is usually a good reason to doubt it.
The reason I stated that I knew from personal experience is that I had
that happen on one occasion when a man had gone around and around a winch
and kept banging his head on the corner of the winch. A few of us were
there to give CPR until a medic came, but when holding his head, it was
obvious that it was all disassociated plates that had been detached from
each other.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechThat's because the
damage hadn't been done until the body reached Bethesda.
The damage was seen in the Z-film and is as obvious as it is graphic. Of
course you are forced to claim the Z-film was altered because it is one
more piece of forensic evidence that conflicts with your beliefs.
Shucks! I didn't feel 'forced'! And I can correct yet another of
your errors. I made no 'claim' that the Z-film was altered, I simply
quoted Douglas Horne and the witness to the original film, and showed a
couple of independent analyses. All showing that the Z-film was altered.
I made a statement, not a 'claim'.
Why would you quote Doug Horne. He never saw the original Z-film. What the
hell does he have to offer.
Well now, I'll tell you since you ask. Douglas Horne wrote a 5 volume
set of books on the ARRB and what was learned during their examinations
and testimonies. If you read the 4th volume of the set, you will learn of
all the extant devices available in 1963 for film manipulation, and what
happened to the Z-film and its travels to Rochester, NY and other places
while being altered. You will also learn of the error they made in trying
to duplicate the header that every film had back then that gave away the
fact that the current Z-film is NOT the original.
Are you telling us Doug Horne saw the original Z-film? Or did he see the
manipulation being done to it? Or did he just make up some bullshit story
that only really gullible people believe?
WRONG yet again! Your typical error. I've told you of these things
before, but you're so rooted in the WCR that you can't remember reality.
Douglas Horne interviewed the CIA Film Analyst that saw the original
Z-film. He was Dino Brugione. And the other CIA Film Analyst that was
talked to and who signed off on an interview was Homer McMahon.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechThe witness you are relying on said he
Post by bigdogremembered the Z-film being even more gory than what the public saw. That
would indicate and even bigger blowout in JFK's head than what we see in
the Z-film, not a smaller one that would later be enlarged as you
claim.
Not necessarily. The witness made it clear that the Z-film (new
version) was shorter at the point where the kill shot strikes. They show
that only a single frame did ALL splashing of blood and brain material,
while in reality it took many more frames in the original. And they had
to have done something to the film at the 313 point, what with the many
frames with the black blob covering up the 'large hole' in the BOH that
they tried to hide.
Oh, they had to have done that. I guess when you put it that way no proof
is necessary.
The black blob can be seen by many people by simply looking closely at
the frames after the kill shot.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechWhile you have admitted that there was a large hole
in the BOH, you place it more to the right side and try to move it more to
the TOP of the head.
I have stated that the defect in the occipital was just part of a much
larger defect that extended all along the upper right side of JFK's head.
Or as it was described in the AR, it was chiefly parietal but extended
somewhat into the occipital and temporal regions. Pretty much what we see
in the Z-film.
Well you're a believer in reports, and never think that they could be
false.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechHowever, many LNs still go along with the old WCR
version where the wound in the BOH was only a tiny bullet hole, which
matched something that Boswell had described.
There was a small hole in the BOH but the blowout occurred forward of
that. It's not and either/or choice.
I sure have news for you. The 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK was almost
completely in the BOH, and not on the side. That side wound and some of
the top was made when Humes and Boswell expanded the wound in the BOH.
The proof od that is the Over 40+ witnesses that saw the wound before the
body got to Bethesda.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechThat disagreement between you and the many other LNs is humorous, it
doesn't help to get to the details of the murder.
There is no disagreement that I am aware of.
Post by mainframetechPoor Claviger is still
arguing that there was never any large hole anywhere in the head, just the
small bullet hole.
I'll bet you can't cite a single statement from him in which he says that.
A quote please. Not your paraphrase of what he said.
Forget it. You've made it clear you're not going to hunt sown cites
and links, so I'm not going to do the same for you if I'm not in the mood.
Go talk to Claviger and ask him.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechTHEN there were
a few witnesses that saw that damage, as they were supposed to, after it
was made. Remember, there was more than one witness to the clandestine
'work', so there is corroboration.
There was no clandestine work. Sawing open the head and removing the brain
are a normal part of a forensic autopsy.
WRONG! There was no autopsy until 8:00pm,
Because you say so.
Of course not! Now don't go off into being ridiculous! We've been over
that. The regular autopsy was scheduled for 8:00pm.
So they started the preliminary work when the body became available. Do
you think they should have sat around twiddling their thumbs until the
scheduled start time?
WRONG! Since they were expecting admirals and generals, they scheduled
it for a time they could all get there. It was at 8:00pm. Here's some
info:
"The autopsy of President John F. Kennedy was performed, beginning at
about 8 p.m. EST November 22, 1963, on the day of his assassination and
ending at about 12:30 AM EST November 23, 1963, at the Bethesda Naval
Hospital in Bethesda, Maryland. The choice of autopsy hospital in the
Washington, D.C. area was made by the now former President's widow,
Jacqueline Kennedy. She chose the Bethesda Naval Hospital because
President Kennedy had been a naval officer."
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_autopsy
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechFinck was late and
arrived at 8:30pm. All through the testimonies it is stated clearly that
the autopsy was at 8:00pm. That gave the big brass time to get there to
view the autopsy. There were generals and admirals present at 8:00pm and
not before.
Cite please.
See above.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechThe clandestine 'work' done by Humes and Boswell was done at
6:35pm when there was NO ONE to see what was going on except a couple
enlisted men and a mortician,
And just how did you establish they did that at 6:35? That was the time
the body arrived at the loading dock. Do you think they immediately
started cutting open the skull.
Yes, Humes and Boswell were waiting on the loading dock for them to
come with the body. They went right to work when the body was put on the
table from the SHIPPING casket. They needed all the time they could get
before the family got there with the Bronze casket. From conversation of
the X-ray technicians, Humes and Boswell were looking for bullets and
fragments in the body first.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechwho weren't at first considered important.
But when things got heavy and Humes and Boswell had begun modifying the
head of JFK, they kicked out the enlisted men whom they could order
around.
Your imagination is running wild.
WRONG! Everything is in cites and links stating exactly that as above.
You know me better. You just get caught on these challenges over and
over.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechand the clandestine work was
done at 6:35pm.
What was clandestine about it?
Post by mainframetechThey even tried to cover it up, but probably failed at
that one. But we've been over all that and you lost that argument. Why
repeat the whole thing over again?
No they didn't. They never tried to hide the fact they opened up the skull
and removed what was left of JFK's brain.
Oh? But that had been told to you, some of which was from the records.
Remember that it was Humes and Boswell that had waited for the body to
arrive in the SHIPPING casket. It was taken out and put on the table as
per the drawing I've shown you of the morgue and the tables and caskets.
Watching were Edward Reed who gave sworn testimony as to what he saw, and
Tom Robinson, mortician, who arrived early and watched the damaging of the
body by the 2 officers.
You story keeps getting goofier and goofier. You have the body arriving in
the shipping casket. Then you have the empty bronze casket arriving. Then
you have the body being put back into the bronze casket. Then you have the
body being taken out of the bronze casket. Just when did they find time to
do the clandestine surgery? Was that before or after they put the body
back in the bronze casket?
WRONG! There's really something wrong with your memory. All this has
been told to you before, and whether you believe it or not, you heard it
all, not just once. I'll give you the general sequence, but I'm not going
to dig up all the cites that I put out last time. If you didn't copy them
down, then tough.
The SHIPPING casket arrived at 6:35pm as per the after action report of
Roger Boyajian, a Marine sergeant in charge of a security detail. At that
time Humes and Boswell worked on the body first to find bullets and
fragments and remove them, and then to change the body within the time
they had to look more like it was hit by bullets from above and behind.
During the clandestine 'work' at one point Edward Reed, X-ray technician,
who was watching from the gallery, along with a couple other Navy
personnel were kicked out of the morgue.
Next, the Bronze casket arrived at the morgue about 7:17pm. Seen by
Dennis David when it arrived at the front entrance at about 6:55pm. At
about that time the body went back into the Bronze casket and it went
outside to be chased by the official casket team who had been told the
casket was around the base somewhere. At just before 8:00pm, with all the
admirals and generals in the gallery waiting to see the autopsy, the
Bronze casket was brought in and the body put on the table to start the
autopsy. Finck came in at about 8:30pm, and around that time Humes went
into the skull and brought out the brain, or what was left of it and it
came out easily. When that happened and everyone was watching, Humes made
a humorous comment that was heard by James Jenkins, technician, that the
brain just "fell out into my hands". This was very strange, since the
brain was NOT supposed to do that. To get the brain out, after cutting
the skull and scalp they go in behind the brain and sever the spinal cord,
then the optic nerves, and then various arteries and such. And that job
is ALWAYS down by the technicians, Paul O'Connor and James Jenkins.
Normally when the brain is taken out, it is put into a bucket of
formalin, but they put it back in the head, so that it would look normal
at the REAL autopsy. After trying to cover up that he and Boswell had
removed the brain earlier, they got back to doing the autopsy.
As to what occurred DURING the autopsy, we've discussed that many times.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechThey removed the brain and did what they were ordered to do, which was
to look for bullets in the body and remove them, and make the body look
more like it was fired upon from above and behind.
Really. Who gave the order to make the body look like it was fired upon
from above and behind and what is your evidence of that order?
First, they made it clear to the technicians BEFORE the autopsy when
they were doing the clandestine 'work', that they had to find bullets and
fragments. That is not the normal thing to begin with. All during the
autopsy there was interruption and messages coming in from Admiral Burkley
to skip a procedure or do this or that. Usually it was to skip something.
When they found what happened to the back wound bullet they knew that it
had never gone out the throat wound, and when they opened the body, they
were able to verify that conclusion that the bullet stopped at the pleura.
Yet when the autopsy was over and they knew what had happened to the
back wound bullet, Humes was ordered to write an Autopsy Report (AR)
saying something complete different and completely wrong! That had to be
from orders, because Humes would never write such wrong information in the
autopsy of the POTUS without orders.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechThat meant damaging
the head further by cutting out more of the wound at the BOH by expanding
it around the right side and then a bit on top. A comparison of the
witnessses of the head at Parkland, and then after at Bethesda shows that
the clandestine 'work' was done at Bethesda, and witnesses put it at
6:35pm in the morgue by Humes and Boswell.
So the body arrived in the shipping casket at 6:35 and immediately Humes
and Boswell started going at it with a bone saw to extend the blowout to
the upper right side of JFK's head. Is that when they removed the brain
too? And then after doing that, they put the body back into bronze casket.
But wait a minute. You have said that didn't happen until they were
getting ready to take the x-rays and ordered everybody out of the room.
This is all so confusing. Maybe you could clarify things by giving us a
timeline of these events.
See above. I just did that.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechthey put the brain back in the skull at that early clandestine 'work',
but when it came time to pretend to do the brain removal in front of the
gallery,
Oh, now that's a new twist. The put the brain back in the skull. Did they
put the cap back on the skull too. And was this before or after they put
the body back into the bronze casket.
WRONG! Use your head. The brain went back into the skull when they
were done looking through it for bullets and fragments. They couldn't let
those remain because it would prove that there was a conspiracy. The body
then went back into the Bronze casket.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechthe brain came out far to easily, and Humes commented to a few
people around him, as if he didn't understand it, that "the brain fell out
in my hands"! Of course he was being facetious, since he was the one who
had removed it earlier.
Of course. It's your story. Make it as interesting as you like.
WRONG! It's not my story, because it's all from witnesses. That line
of Humes was from James Jenkins who heard it said.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechWhen the brain is removed, the spinal cord has to
be severed, and the optic nerves had be severed, and then a lot of
arteries have to be cut too. If these things aren't done, the brain will
not come out. Since it came out too fast, Humes had to make up a comment
to pretend he was as surprised as everyone else, but he was the one that
had removed it earlier in front of the witnesses.
Was this before or after they extended the defect in the skull. I know it
is too much to expect but it would be fascinating if you would actually
provide a time line for all the things that you claimed happened.
See above for general time line. The search for bullets and the removal
of the brain during the clandestine 'work' was first, then after the
enlisted personnel were kicked out of the morgue, the enlarging of the
wound was done. But Tom Robinson was there through all of it and
commented using the word "damaged" when referring to what the pathologists
did to the head.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechAfter that when they had to testify, Humes and Boswell always pretended
that the autopsy was all one big session from 8:00pm on.
Oh, they were just pretending.
Since it didn't happen that way, they had to, to make it seem normal.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechThere was a gallery full of admirals and generals and other witnesses
when the real autopsy began.
The real autopsy began when the prosectors started work on the body.
Nope, sorry, you don't get to decide that and change history. They had
to schedule the autopsy for all the big boys to attend, and so they made
it 8:00pm, and that's when everyone showed up. The whole purpose of the
casket switch was to get the body to Bethesda as early as possible without
family so that the clandestine 'work' could be done. It wouldn't do to
leave bullets from some other gun than Oswald's in the body, or any proof
that there were shots from in front and to the sides of JFK. They all had
to look like they came from the TSBD above and behind. A lot of work was
done to keep that image of the 'lone nut' scenario going and protect it at
all times.
And you believe all this crap? Amazing!
Please don't pretend to be so dumb. I can't believe you are.
Everything above that you find "amazing" is from statements and text in
the case.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechThey wanted to see the full autopsy, and
Humes and Boswell had to put the brain back into the skull and then take
it out in front of the gallery, and as Humes said "it practically fell out
in my hands". That was his attempt to distance himself from the prior
clandestine 'work' on the head. Of course, many in the gallery had to
have figured out that to remove the brain you have to sever the spinal
cord, then the optic nerves and various arteries, none of which had to be
done by humes when taking out the brain. That was the giveaway that there
had ben clandestine 'work' done.
This keeps getting funnier and funnier. First you have the conspirators
switching JFK's body from one casket to another and back again like he was
some sort of giant jack-in-the-box. Now you have them taking the brain out
and putting it back in. Too funny.
Well it's only funny to you because you can't follow the simple logic
of what they were doing. All those movements were necessary to carry out
the plot. I've explained the reasons for everything all the way along and
yet you still can't get it all into your head.
Wouldn't it have been easier to just hire one competent sniper and take
JFK out with a single shot rather than shooting him from all different
angles and then try to frame a lone assassin.
WRONG! As usual you're not thinking. For the conspirators to get away
free without having to look over their shoulders, they had to have someone
to blame for the killing, and then to kill them before they could talk and
prove they were innocent. A 'patsy'.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechAre you going to claim they didn't see a small entry
Post by bigdogwound in the the BOH? Are you going to claim you are a better judge of
that than they are even though they saw much more than you and know much
more than you.
WRONG! You seem to have already forgotten everything you've been
taught. Since there was a 'large hole' in the BOH seen by over 40+
witnesses, there isn't much chance there was any room for an itty-bitty
wound like you describe.
The defect was above the entry hole. Dr. Peter Cummings, a foremost
authority on gun shot wounds to the head has pointed out the fracture
lines radiating out from the entry wound providing unmistakable proof of
the entry wound in the BOH. Are you going to claim you know more than he
does also?
WRONG! So you got sucked in by yet another 'expert'. The placement
of the tiny hole by Boswell can be looked at in the 'leaked' autopsy
photos and it isn't there. What's the matter with you're seeing? You
need a seeing eye 'expert' to tell you what's there or what's not? And
where is the baseball sized 'large hole' in the BOH seen by over 40+
witnesses?
You didn't address the fracture lines in the skull radiating out from the
entrance wound which Dr. Peter Cummings pointed out. Surely with your half
vast knowledge of forensic medicine you should have some explanation of
how those fracture lines radiated from the BOH if the bullet didn't enter
in the BOH.
So you ran away again from questions about those 'leaked' photos of the
autopsy. Tried to change the subject to get away. The work of David
Mantik, PhD shows that the X-rays we've looked at many times were probably
not even of JFK.
And you believe that because a radiation oncologist said saw. Of course.
Why believe one of the top medical examiners in the country when you have
a guy who treats cancer patients who tells a different story.
WRONG! I've given you Mantik's cv and it's far more involved than you
want to say. I've shown it to you too.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechNow back to the questions you ran away from. I asked "where is the
baseball sized 'large hole' in the BOH seen by over 40+ witnesses in the
photo showing the BOH? And why does one photo show brains coming out all
over the place twisted and hanging from the TOP of the head, and then
other photos show NOTHING coming out of the TOP of the head at all? Were
the brains just trimmed off and thrown away? There are many of these
anomalies to ask, but there are 2 questions addressed to you for starters.
Now you're acting like Harris. You keep pretending that question has been
asked and answer dozens of times because you didn't like the answer you
got. One more time, the defect in the occipital was just part of a much
larger defect that extended through the parietal region into the temporal
region just like the the AR stated. Just like we see in the Z-film. Just
like the photos and x-rays showed. Just like the review panels concluded.
Well you've been corrected on that many times up to now. You're memory
is your problem (among others) if you can't remember all these things
maybe you should see a specialist. Your previous description of that
wound was missing the word parietal, and only contained occiput and
temporal. Make up your mind. In any event the wound you describe was
made by Humes and Boswell expanding the BOH wound that was first there and
that was seen by Over 40+ witnesses.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechAnd the 'leaked' autopsy photo of the BOH does
NOT show any bullet hole there, though humorously the Dox drawing of that
photo shows a bullet hole clearly...:)
Just because you don't recognize a bullet hole doesn't mean there wasn't a
bullet hole there. The experienced medical examiners have seen many gun
shot wounds to the head and know what they look like. You think because
you read DiMaio's book that makes you more qualified to say what an
entrance wound in the head looks like. That is just too funny.
WRONG! I don't play like you that I'm an expert at everything. But
reading DiMaio isn't the worst thing you could do. There is no bullet
hole in the lower BOH in the photo among the 'leaked' autopsy photos.
That's plain for the average person, and we don't need an expert to look
and tell us that one is there or not. Because they used the Dox drawings
for some of the medical panels, they had her put in a bullet hole that was
never on the original photo she copied. They didn't expect that the
photos would be 'leaked' and looked at carefully. Care to answer the
anomaly of that last photo? Or will you run away?
There is no anomaly.
Ah! You chose to run away! You've not answered the question with that
Marsh-like limited answer.
You ask a question based on a false premise and you expect me to accept
the premise? Ridiculous.
What premise? Say a complete sentence, like I used to have to tell
Marsh. If you think there is a trick question, then spell it out and
explain why you don't want to answer it. Be honest.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechWhen a photo shows nothing like a bullet hole,
and a drawing of that very photo shows a bullet hole, there's an anomaly.
Please explain yourself so we can all get the benefit of your thought
processes.
The photo shows the same bullet hold as the drawing. The drawing was done
with much greater contrast but shows the bullet wound in the same location
as the photo. It is just more vivid in the drawing. That too has been
asked and answered many times. Now pretend it hasn't and come back in a
couple days and ask me to explain it to you again.
No, I understood your answer, but I just know it bullshit. Anything
to get off the dime. You are saying that the bullet wound was in the same
exact location on the real photo as the drawing has it?
Here's the real photo:
Loading Image...
Here's the drawing:
Loading Image...
But there's a problem, maybe you can help with it. Here's Boswell's
drawing of the head with the huge missing piece on side and top, but he's
put in the tiny bullet hole 4 inches down from where you want there to be
a bullet wound, and over to the right by a couple inches. So who's wrong,
you, Boswell or the photo?
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechIt's just too much and so
laughable! That's the kind of dreck you have in your WCR! And you, in
your fantasy mode will defend it to your death! So brave and foolish.
Let's see. We have the unanimous findings of every medical examiner who
has seen the first generation photos and x-rays and we have an opposing
opinion from Dr. Chris who has read a book and seen multi-generational
copies of the original photos and x-rays. Who to believe. Who to believe.
FALSE! Where do you get this misinformation you're peddling? The
medical panels did NOT see all photos and X-rays, and they didn't hear all
testimony, and they didn't see the proof in the body of many of the things
that were covered up. Any findings they could make will be wrong (and
were) since they had so little to work with. Now that much of the
evidence has come out, it's clear what they missed because they were
misled.
They saw more than you. They know more than you. Their opinions are valid.
Yours are not.
I have big news for you. You're WRONG yet again! They could not
possibly see more than me since the body was buried and the photos and
X-rays were missing the most important parts.
Oh, so you got to see the missing photos and x-rays. Why didn't you just
say so?
You need to go back and reread what I said.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechI now have much more
information than the medical panels had.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Oh, wait. You were serious.
Of course. A shame you never know the right place to laugh. I mean
that I have more information from external sources than they had, not
their internal or educational sources. They were unaware of many of the
bits of info, and many things to hear from Navy personnel, yet I heard and
saw those things.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechNot that I know more in their
chosen profession, but I happened to have seen and heard much more than
they were allowed to see and hear. So I have more info at my recall and
the answer for the cause of death is obvious to any simple average person
if they had the same info. The panels have no input here.
That is laugh out loud funny.
As expected you have nothing of use to offer, and nothing but opinion.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechIn some cases the medical panels were fed the Ida Dox drawings as if
it were proof from the autopsy, so that the real drawings could be kept
private for the family. A joke no doubt, but it allowed them to con the
panels that were fed that stuff. And you want to rely on the panels after
they had been hoaxed so easily!
Really? That's the best you could do?
WRONG! You know that I've shown proof of everything I've said, and
will be glad to show it to those others that are serious about finding out
what happened to JFK.
No you haven't. You've pointed to statements of witnesses made decades
after the assassination. Nothing any witness says by itself can prove
anything because witnesses get things wrong for a variety of reasons. You
have zero forensic evidence to support any of your contentions.
WRONG! Because YOU say witness statements are not valid means nothing.
Witness statements have convicted many people over the years. And when
corroborated, they mean much more. And please don't forget that 'forensic
evidence' can be manipulated and look like one thing when it is really
another. In this case there has been some of that manipulation.
Even though your only "evidence" of such manipulation is that they
forensic evidence conflicts with your beliefs. It couldn't be that your
beliefs are FUBAR.
Your thinking is FUBAR. I have many reasons aside from my personal
belief, as you are often told.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechNow you might want to show us an example of 'forensic evidence' in this
case. It's probably something that someone told you, and you thought it
was 'forensic evidence'. I'm waiting.
I already gave you 8 pieces of forensic evidence that corroborates
Brennan. It's your turn to come up with 8 excuses to dismiss it.
There's was no reason to dismiss those items of Forensic Evidence, but
I easily dismiss Brennan since he's not that kind of evidence and he has
discredited himself. The only thing he and the 8 items corroborated on
was the rifle, and we cannot be certain it was the same one as you listed,
because Brennan said there was no scope on the rifle, and we know the MC
rifle had a scope.
Chris
