Discussion:
Humes burning his notes
Add Reply
d***@gmail.com
2018-07-09 20:00:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
This is mostly for David Von Pein, but I'll assume others might want to
chime in. I read a lot of David's stuff and I ran across this about Dr.
James Humes burning his notes.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-78.html#Dr-Humes

"The reason Humes burned a first draft of the autopsy report isn't quite
as clear, because that document wasn't stained with JFK's blood. But Humes
stated that he burned that draft because it contained some errors of some
kind. Therefore, Humes rewrote the draft and burned the inaccurate copy."
- David Von Pein

Yes, it is not quite so clear why he burned the 1st draft after already
burning his notes for the very clear (and articulated) reason of having
blood stains on it.

I've often thought that Humes may have written the 1st draft BEFORE having
the telephone conversation with Dr. Perry (Parkland) and discovered (for
the first time) that there was a bullet wound in the throat. The
conclusion that he reached during the autopsy was that the bullet didn't
transit and must have fallen out. It didn't seem to make a lot of sense
but there was really no choice based on 1) there was no exit wound and 2)
x-rays indicated there was no embedded bullet.

I'm thinking that conclusion was reflected in his first draft and then,
after the Perry conversation, it all became much clearer and made a lot
more sense. He changed his conclusion. (NOTE: The changed conclusion was
something FBI agents Sibert & O'Neill were unaware of and explains why
their report mentions the conclusion they overheard while at the autopsy.)

I'm thinking that Humes may have been somewhat embarrassed about his 1st
conclusion. That may explain why he did elaborate as to what those
"errors" might have been. Those errors might have been: 1) Generally,
before beginning an autopsy, the pathologist converses with any doctors
who previously treated the victim for the wounds being analyzed. 2) The
clothing of a shooting victim is often relevant. Humes never examined
Kennedy's shirt/tie. I'm not sure whether he even had access to them so it
may not have been his fault. But he could have, at least, inquired about
it. 3) He didn't track the wound. That seemed to be more in the interest
of expediency (being pressured to hurry) and not protocol. 4) Finally, the
conclusion that a bullet fired from a rifle would only leave a shallow
wound in soft tissue - and fall out - seems quite unlikely on a common
sense level. I think Humes even realized that, which explains why it was
so perplexing (to all three pathologists) during the actual autopsy.

Of course, this is when the CTs go crazy and scream "He didn't track the
wound!" or "He could only insert his pinkie a short distance into the
wound!"

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-10 19:30:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
This is mostly for David Von Pein, but I'll assume others might want to
chime in. I read a lot of David's stuff and I ran across this about Dr.
James Humes burning his notes.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-78.html#Dr-Humes
"The reason Humes burned a first draft of the autopsy report isn't quite
as clear, because that document wasn't stained with JFK's blood. But Humes
stated that he burned that draft because it contained some errors of some
kind. Therefore, Humes rewrote the draft and burned the inaccurate copy."
- David Von Pein
Yes, it is not quite so clear why he burned the 1st draft after already
burning his notes for the very clear (and articulated) reason of having
blood stains on it.
So you mean YOU can't figure it out. Some of us have.
Please don't be honest and say the word coverup.
Think of it as a minor correction. Like maybe he spotted a TYPO as you
often do. So he forgot to capitalize President or something.
Maybe he forgot the medical term for back.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I've often thought that Humes may have written the 1st draft BEFORE having
the telephone conversation with Dr. Perry (Parkland) and discovered (for
Well, he said he did. Don't you beliieve him?
Maybe the FBI told him that there is no such thing as an Ice Bullet.
Post by d***@gmail.com
the first time) that there was a bullet wound in the throat. The
Yes, even a klutz like YOU can SEE the throat wound. But then again you're
not a doctor. The original theory when they found out about it was that
the bullet hit the back of the head and exited the throat. Now aren't you
glad I'm here to show you things you never knew about before?

Loading Image...

This came out shortly after midnight.
Post by d***@gmail.com
conclusion that he reached during the autopsy was that the bullet didn't
transit and must have fallen out. It didn't seem to make a lot of sense
Someone told them it probably came out during heart massage.
Post by d***@gmail.com
but there was really no choice based on 1) there was no exit wound and 2)
x-rays indicated there was no embedded bullet.
With that type of ammo there will almost NEVER be en embedded bullet
except for at the end of 44 inches of Pondersosa Pine.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that conclusion was reflected in his first draft and then,
after the Perry conversation, it all became much clearer and made a lot
It was like a light blub went off in his head and he figured it out
without having to go back and dissecting and examining the wounds. And the
cover-up keeps telling us that we can only figure it out if we ourseles
examine the body. OK< let's examine the body.
Post by d***@gmail.com
more sense. He changed his conclusion. (NOTE: The changed conclusion was
something FBI agents Sibert & O'Neill were unaware of and explains why
their report mentions the conclusion they overheard while at the autopsy.)
Yes, I seriously doubt and no one has been able to ptove that it was the
2 FBI agents who INVENTED the Ice Bullet Theory (IBT).
Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that Humes may have been somewhat embarrassed about his 1st
conclusion. That may explain why he did elaborate as to what those
Ya think?
He was embarrassed by his incompetence.
Post by d***@gmail.com
"errors" might have been. Those errors might have been: 1) Generally,
before beginning an autopsy, the pathologist converses with any doctors
who previously treated the victim for the wounds being analyzed. 2) The
Only in a real, legal autopsy. Not in a cover-up. When you know the victim
was killed by the Mayor's brother, you don't ask the attending physician
if any facts point to it being an inside job. That's not polite.
Post by d***@gmail.com
clothing of a shooting victim is often relevant. Humes never examined
Kennedy's shirt/tie. I'm not sure whether he even had access to them so it
So what? Leave that to the FBI.
Post by d***@gmail.com
may not have been his fault. But he could have, at least, inquired about
it. 3) He didn't track the wound. That seemed to be more in the interest
He was ORDERED not to examine the back wound.
You still don't dare to say the word cover-up.
Maybe you could be like Hosty and claim it was a "Benign" cover-up.
See if you can gather up your courage to do that.
Post by d***@gmail.com
of expediency (being pressured to hurry) and not protocol. 4) Finally, the
conclusion that a bullet fired from a rifle would only leave a shallow
wound in soft tissue - and fall out - seems quite unlikely on a common
sense level. I think Humes even realized that, which explains why it was
Common sense? Are you nuts?
Post by d***@gmail.com
so perplexing (to all three pathologists) during the actual autopsy.
Of course, this is when the CTs go crazy and scream "He didn't track the
wound!" or "He could only insert his pinkie a short distance into the
wound!"
No competent doctor just inserts his pinky.
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
David Von Pein
2018-07-11 13:32:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
This is mostly for David Von Pein, but I'll assume others might want to
chime in. I read a lot of David's stuff and I ran across this about Dr.
James Humes burning his notes.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-78.html#Dr-Humes
"The reason Humes burned a first draft of the autopsy report isn't quite
as clear, because that document wasn't stained with JFK's blood. But Humes
stated that he burned that draft because it contained some errors of some
kind. Therefore, Humes rewrote the draft and burned the inaccurate copy."
- David Von Pein
Yes, it is not quite so clear why he burned the 1st draft after already
burning his notes for the very clear (and articulated) reason of having
blood stains on it.
So you mean YOU can't figure it out. Some of us have.
Please don't be honest and say the word coverup.
Think of it as a minor correction. Like maybe he spotted a TYPO as you
often do. So he forgot to capitalize President or something.
Maybe he forgot the medical term for back.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I've often thought that Humes may have written the 1st draft BEFORE having
the telephone conversation with Dr. Perry (Parkland) and discovered (for
Well, he said he did. Don't you beliieve him?
Maybe the FBI told him that there is no such thing as an Ice Bullet.
Post by d***@gmail.com
the first time) that there was a bullet wound in the throat. The
Yes, even a klutz like YOU can SEE the throat wound. But then again you're
not a doctor. The original theory when they found out about it was that
the bullet hit the back of the head and exited the throat. Now aren't you
glad I'm here to show you things you never knew about before?
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Globe11-23-63.jpg
This came out shortly after midnight.
Thanks for the 11/23/63 Boston Globe article, Tony.

It's interesting, indeed, to see that despite Dr. Perry's initial
guesswork about the throat wound being one of ENTRY, the media was (on
Sat., Nov. 23!) also theorizing about the throat wound being an EXIT wound
as well....

"The rather meager medical details attributed to Dr. Malcolm Perry, the
attending surgeon, described the bullet as entering just below the Adam's
Apple and leaving by the back of the head. Since that statement Friday
afternoon, it is believed from determining the site of the firing that the
bullet entered the back of the head first and came out just under the
Adam's Apple." -- Boston Globe; 11/23/63

Loading Image...
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
conclusion that he reached during the autopsy was that the bullet didn't
transit and must have fallen out. It didn't seem to make a lot of sense
Someone told them it probably came out during heart massage.
Post by d***@gmail.com
but there was really no choice based on 1) there was no exit wound and 2)
x-rays indicated there was no embedded bullet.
With that type of ammo there will almost NEVER be en embedded bullet
except for at the end of 44 inches of Pondersosa Pine.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that conclusion was reflected in his first draft and then,
after the Perry conversation, it all became much clearer and made a lot
It was like a light blub went off in his head and he figured it out
without having to go back and dissecting and examining the wounds. And the
cover-up keeps telling us that we can only figure it out if we ourseles
examine the body. OK< let's examine the body.
Post by d***@gmail.com
more sense. He changed his conclusion. (NOTE: The changed conclusion was
something FBI agents Sibert & O'Neill were unaware of and explains why
their report mentions the conclusion they overheard while at the autopsy.)
Yes, I seriously doubt and no one has been able to ptove that it was the
2 FBI agents who INVENTED the Ice Bullet Theory (IBT).
Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that Humes may have been somewhat embarrassed about his 1st
conclusion. That may explain why he did elaborate as to what those
Ya think?
He was embarrassed by his incompetence.
Post by d***@gmail.com
"errors" might have been. Those errors might have been: 1) Generally,
before beginning an autopsy, the pathologist converses with any doctors
who previously treated the victim for the wounds being analyzed. 2) The
Only in a real, legal autopsy. Not in a cover-up. When you know the victim
was killed by the Mayor's brother, you don't ask the attending physician
if any facts point to it being an inside job. That's not polite.
Post by d***@gmail.com
clothing of a shooting victim is often relevant. Humes never examined
Kennedy's shirt/tie. I'm not sure whether he even had access to them so it
So what? Leave that to the FBI.
Post by d***@gmail.com
may not have been his fault. But he could have, at least, inquired about
it. 3) He didn't track the wound. That seemed to be more in the interest
He was ORDERED not to examine the back wound.
You still don't dare to say the word cover-up.
Maybe you could be like Hosty and claim it was a "Benign" cover-up.
See if you can gather up your courage to do that.
Post by d***@gmail.com
of expediency (being pressured to hurry) and not protocol. 4) Finally, the
conclusion that a bullet fired from a rifle would only leave a shallow
wound in soft tissue - and fall out - seems quite unlikely on a common
sense level. I think Humes even realized that, which explains why it was
Common sense? Are you nuts?
Post by d***@gmail.com
so perplexing (to all three pathologists) during the actual autopsy.
Of course, this is when the CTs go crazy and scream "He didn't track the
wound!" or "He could only insert his pinkie a short distance into the
wound!"
No competent doctor just inserts his pinky.
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-12 12:58:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
This is mostly for David Von Pein, but I'll assume others might want to
chime in. I read a lot of David's stuff and I ran across this about Dr.
James Humes burning his notes.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-78.html#Dr-Humes
"The reason Humes burned a first draft of the autopsy report isn't quite
as clear, because that document wasn't stained with JFK's blood. But Humes
stated that he burned that draft because it contained some errors of some
kind. Therefore, Humes rewrote the draft and burned the inaccurate copy."
- David Von Pein
Yes, it is not quite so clear why he burned the 1st draft after already
burning his notes for the very clear (and articulated) reason of having
blood stains on it.
So you mean YOU can't figure it out. Some of us have.
Please don't be honest and say the word coverup.
Think of it as a minor correction. Like maybe he spotted a TYPO as you
often do. So he forgot to capitalize President or something.
Maybe he forgot the medical term for back.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I've often thought that Humes may have written the 1st draft BEFORE having
the telephone conversation with Dr. Perry (Parkland) and discovered (for
Well, he said he did. Don't you beliieve him?
Maybe the FBI told him that there is no such thing as an Ice Bullet.
Post by d***@gmail.com
the first time) that there was a bullet wound in the throat. The
Yes, even a klutz like YOU can SEE the throat wound. But then again you're
not a doctor. The original theory when they found out about it was that
the bullet hit the back of the head and exited the throat. Now aren't you
glad I'm here to show you things you never knew about before?
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Globe11-23-63.jpg
This came out shortly after midnight.
Thanks for the 11/23/63 Boston Globe article, Tony.
It's interesting, indeed, to see that despite Dr. Perry's initial
guesswork about the throat wound being one of ENTRY, the media was (on
Sat., Nov. 23!) also theorizing about the throat wound being an EXIT wound
as well....
Could have been either. That's why they have autopsies and dissect to
SEE what it really is. What if the autopsy doctors had been the cutdowns
and thought they were stab wounds?

But Perry's first instinct on 11.22.63 was that it was an entrance wound
because it was so small and neat. What he didn't know is that the stiff
shirt collar helped keep the skin tight.
Did he even see the nick in the tie? No, he was only there to try to
save a life, not do an autopsy. I don't think it's legal to do an
autopsy on a person WHILE the person is still alive. I think they even
made a horror movie about that.
He also did not see the back wound because he had no reason to turn the
body over.
Post by David Von Pein
"The rather meager medical details attributed to Dr. Malcolm Perry, the
attending surgeon, described the bullet as entering just below the Adam's
Apple and leaving by the back of the head. Since that statement Friday
What about his statement on FRIDAY afternoon?

QUESTION-
Can???t we clear this up just a little more? In your estimation, was
there one or two wounds? Just give us something.
DR. MALCOM PERRY-
I don???t know. From the injury, it is conceivable that it could have
been caused by one wound, but there could have been two just as well if
the second bullet struck the head in addition to striking the neck, and
I cannot tell you that due to the nature of the wound. There is no way
for me to tell.
QUESTION-
Doctor, describe the entrance wound. You think from the front in
the throat?
DR. MALCOM PERRY-
The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the
throat; yes, that is correct. The exit wound, I don???t know. It could
have been the head or there could have been a second wound of the head.
There was not time to determine this at the particular instant.
QUESTION-
Would the bullet have to travel up from the neck wound to exit
through the back?
DR. MALCOM PERRY-
Unless it was deviated from its course by striking bone or some
other object.


It's a cute theory, but not very realistic that the bullet would be
deflected up by a vertebra. My God, what if that happened with the back
shot and the bullet was deflected up and out the throat?
It might miss hitting Governor Connally. Then you would need another
bullet or two just for Connally.
Post by David Von Pein
afternoon, it is believed from determining the site of the firing that the
bullet entered the back of the head first and came out just under the
Adam's Apple." -- Boston Globe; 11/23/63
The Globe knew things that the ER doctors did not know. They had better
sources, U can't tell you who, but try to figure out WHEN they were
writing that story and making the drawing in order to get it out onto the
streets by Saturday afternoon. How did they know the exact point of
entrance on the back of the head BELOW the EOP? Who told them that? Perry
didn't think that.
Post by David Von Pein
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-h5LGtiXhTGA/W0Uk7VDW26I/AAAAAAABPQ4/_eyn0AQOhAQLte-lmerJMZUfpCVyIPMPQCLcBGAs/s1600/The-Boston-Globe-11-23-63.jpg
Can you figure out where I found that by all the lines on the page? It is
in a microfiche collection of newspaper articles on the JFK assassination
in the Boston Public Library. The black lines are scratches in the glass
lens of that particular microfiche machine which could make Zerox copies.
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
conclusion that he reached during the autopsy was that the bullet didn't
transit and must have fallen out. It didn't seem to make a lot of sense
Someone told them it probably came out during heart massage.
Post by d***@gmail.com
but there was really no choice based on 1) there was no exit wound and 2)
x-rays indicated there was no embedded bullet.
With that type of ammo there will almost NEVER be en embedded bullet
except for at the end of 44 inches of Pondersosa Pine.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that conclusion was reflected in his first draft and then,
after the Perry conversation, it all became much clearer and made a lot
It was like a light blub went off in his head and he figured it out
without having to go back and dissecting and examining the wounds. And the
cover-up keeps telling us that we can only figure it out if we ourseles
examine the body. OK< let's examine the body.
Post by d***@gmail.com
more sense. He changed his conclusion. (NOTE: The changed conclusion was
something FBI agents Sibert & O'Neill were unaware of and explains why
their report mentions the conclusion they overheard while at the autopsy.)
Yes, I seriously doubt and no one has been able to ptove that it was the
2 FBI agents who INVENTED the Ice Bullet Theory (IBT).
Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that Humes may have been somewhat embarrassed about his 1st
conclusion. That may explain why he did elaborate as to what those
Ya think?
He was embarrassed by his incompetence.
Post by d***@gmail.com
"errors" might have been. Those errors might have been: 1) Generally,
before beginning an autopsy, the pathologist converses with any doctors
who previously treated the victim for the wounds being analyzed. 2) The
Only in a real, legal autopsy. Not in a cover-up. When you know the victim
was killed by the Mayor's brother, you don't ask the attending physician
if any facts point to it being an inside job. That's not polite.
Post by d***@gmail.com
clothing of a shooting victim is often relevant. Humes never examined
Kennedy's shirt/tie. I'm not sure whether he even had access to them so it
So what? Leave that to the FBI.
Post by d***@gmail.com
may not have been his fault. But he could have, at least, inquired about
it. 3) He didn't track the wound. That seemed to be more in the interest
He was ORDERED not to examine the back wound.
You still don't dare to say the word cover-up.
Maybe you could be like Hosty and claim it was a "Benign" cover-up.
See if you can gather up your courage to do that.
Post by d***@gmail.com
of expediency (being pressured to hurry) and not protocol. 4) Finally, the
conclusion that a bullet fired from a rifle would only leave a shallow
wound in soft tissue - and fall out - seems quite unlikely on a common
sense level. I think Humes even realized that, which explains why it was
Common sense? Are you nuts?
Post by d***@gmail.com
so perplexing (to all three pathologists) during the actual autopsy.
Of course, this is when the CTs go crazy and scream "He didn't track the
wound!" or "He could only insert his pinkie a short distance into the
wound!"
No competent doctor just inserts his pinky.
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
mainframetech
2018-07-13 01:00:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
This is mostly for David Von Pein, but I'll assume others might want to
chime in. I read a lot of David's stuff and I ran across this about Dr.
James Humes burning his notes.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-78.html#Dr-Humes
"The reason Humes burned a first draft of the autopsy report isn't quite
as clear, because that document wasn't stained with JFK's blood. But Humes
stated that he burned that draft because it contained some errors of some
kind. Therefore, Humes rewrote the draft and burned the inaccurate copy."
- David Von Pein
Yes, it is not quite so clear why he burned the 1st draft after already
burning his notes for the very clear (and articulated) reason of having
blood stains on it.
So you mean YOU can't figure it out. Some of us have.
Please don't be honest and say the word coverup.
Think of it as a minor correction. Like maybe he spotted a TYPO as you
often do. So he forgot to capitalize President or something.
Maybe he forgot the medical term for back.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I've often thought that Humes may have written the 1st draft BEFORE having
the telephone conversation with Dr. Perry (Parkland) and discovered (for
Well, he said he did. Don't you beliieve him?
Maybe the FBI told him that there is no such thing as an Ice Bullet.
Post by d***@gmail.com
the first time) that there was a bullet wound in the throat. The
Yes, even a klutz like YOU can SEE the throat wound. But then again you're
not a doctor. The original theory when they found out about it was that
the bullet hit the back of the head and exited the throat. Now aren't you
glad I'm here to show you things you never knew about before?
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Globe11-23-63.jpg
This came out shortly after midnight.
Thanks for the 11/23/63 Boston Globe article, Tony.
It's interesting, indeed, to see that despite Dr. Perry's initial
guesswork about the throat wound being one of ENTRY, the media was (on
Sat., Nov. 23!) also theorizing about the throat wound being an EXIT wound
as well....
"The rather meager medical details attributed to Dr. Malcolm Perry, the
attending surgeon, described the bullet as entering just below the Adam's
Apple and leaving by the back of the head. Since that statement Friday
afternoon, it is believed from determining the site of the firing that the
bullet entered the back of the head first and came out just under the
Adam's Apple." -- Boston Globe; 11/23/63
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-h5LGtiXhTGA/W0Uk7VDW26I/AAAAAAABPQ4/_eyn0AQOhAQLte-lmerJMZUfpCVyIPMPQCLcBGAs/s1600/The-Boston-Globe-11-23-63.jpg
The throat wound was NOT an EXIT. It was an entry as suggested by
Perry and Carrico, who said it might be either entry or exit. But the
final bit of information was seen during the autopsy, and later spoken
about by Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist on the autopsy team:

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

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

So the proof was in the body, which showed that no bullet left the body
of JFK through the throat wound, therefore the SBT is dead, and there was
a conspiracy.
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
conclusion that he reached during the autopsy was that the bullet didn't
transit and must have fallen out. It didn't seem to make a lot of sense
Someone told them it probably came out during heart massage.
Post by d***@gmail.com
but there was really no choice based on 1) there was no exit wound and 2)
x-rays indicated there was no embedded bullet.
With that type of ammo there will almost NEVER be en embedded bullet
except for at the end of 44 inches of Pondersosa Pine.
The LNs can sure go to extremes to avoid the simple facts. Consider
that the pathologists at Bethesda had orders to make it look like the
cause of death as from a bullet from above and behind. As well they would
be ordered to remove ALL bullets from the body, so that no other weapon
than the MC rifle would be proven to have also helped in the killing.
Tracheotomies are usually small, neat slits enough to get a tube into to
allow breathing. Yet the autopsy photos show a large messy gash at the
throat of JFK. I suggest to you that came from Humes and Boswell probing
around in the neck to find the bullet which probably hit the spine and
stopped there, so they could remove it.
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that conclusion was reflected in his first draft and then,
after the Perry conversation, it all became much clearer and made a lot
It was like a light blub went off in his head and he figured it out
without having to go back and dissecting and examining the wounds. And the
cover-up keeps telling us that we can only figure it out if we ourseles
examine the body. OK< let's examine the body.
Post by d***@gmail.com
more sense. He changed his conclusion. (NOTE: The changed conclusion was
something FBI agents Sibert & O'Neill were unaware of and explains why
their report mentions the conclusion they overheard while at the autopsy.)
Yes, I seriously doubt and no one has been able to ptove that it was the
2 FBI agents who INVENTED the Ice Bullet Theory (IBT).
OK, I'll prove it for you. In the ARRB testimony of James Sibert, FBI
agent, as follows:

"Can you tell me, was the phone call made
to Mr. Killion before or after the body was
unloaded from the casket?
A: Oh, that was after the body was removed it
was on the autopsy table, and the autopsy was in
progress. Because the reason I made that call was
that the pathologists said, ‘There’s no exit to
this back wound,” and probed it with rubber glove
and a chrome probe.
Q: okay.
A: So, that’s when I called and thought maybe
there was some type of bullet that would
disintegate. There just was no bullet that could
be located."
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that Humes may have been somewhat embarrassed about his 1st
conclusion. That may explain why he did elaborate as to what those
Ya think?
He was embarrassed by his incompetence.
Post by d***@gmail.com
"errors" might have been. Those errors might have been: 1) Generally,
before beginning an autopsy, the pathologist converses with any doctors
who previously treated the victim for the wounds being analyzed. 2) The
Only in a real, legal autopsy. Not in a cover-up. When you know the victim
was killed by the Mayor's brother, you don't ask the attending physician
if any facts point to it being an inside job. That's not polite.
Post by d***@gmail.com
clothing of a shooting victim is often relevant. Humes never examined
Kennedy's shirt/tie. I'm not sure whether he even had access to them so it
So what? Leave that to the FBI.
Post by d***@gmail.com
may not have been his fault. But he could have, at least, inquired about
it. 3) He didn't track the wound. That seemed to be more in the interest
He was ORDERED not to examine the back wound.
You still don't dare to say the word cover-up.
Maybe you could be like Hosty and claim it was a "Benign" cover-up.
See if you can gather up your courage to do that.
Post by d***@gmail.com
of expediency (being pressured to hurry) and not protocol. 4) Finally, the
conclusion that a bullet fired from a rifle would only leave a shallow
wound in soft tissue - and fall out - seems quite unlikely on a common
sense level. I think Humes even realized that, which explains why it was
Common sense? Are you nuts?
Let's look into the sworn testimony of Jerrol Custer, X-ray
Technician:

"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine. and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I’d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back-And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That’s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That’s about,
I’d say an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."

Custer ARRB testimony, page 53

Sonometer = Centimeter
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
so perplexing (to all three pathologists) during the actual autopsy.
Of course, this is when the CTs go crazy and scream "He didn't track the
wound!" or "He could only insert his pinkie a short distance into the
wound!"
No competent doctor just inserts his pinky.
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
True, but Humes was not a very experienced pathologist.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-13 18:37:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
This is mostly for David Von Pein, but I'll assume others might want to
chime in. I read a lot of David's stuff and I ran across this about Dr.
James Humes burning his notes.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-78.html#Dr-Humes
"The reason Humes burned a first draft of the autopsy report isn't quite
as clear, because that document wasn't stained with JFK's blood. But Humes
stated that he burned that draft because it contained some errors of some
kind. Therefore, Humes rewrote the draft and burned the inaccurate copy."
- David Von Pein
Yes, it is not quite so clear why he burned the 1st draft after already
burning his notes for the very clear (and articulated) reason of having
blood stains on it.
So you mean YOU can't figure it out. Some of us have.
Please don't be honest and say the word coverup.
Think of it as a minor correction. Like maybe he spotted a TYPO as you
often do. So he forgot to capitalize President or something.
Maybe he forgot the medical term for back.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I've often thought that Humes may have written the 1st draft BEFORE having
the telephone conversation with Dr. Perry (Parkland) and discovered (for
Well, he said he did. Don't you beliieve him?
Maybe the FBI told him that there is no such thing as an Ice Bullet.
Post by d***@gmail.com
the first time) that there was a bullet wound in the throat. The
Yes, even a klutz like YOU can SEE the throat wound. But then again you're
not a doctor. The original theory when they found out about it was that
the bullet hit the back of the head and exited the throat. Now aren't you
glad I'm here to show you things you never knew about before?
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Globe11-23-63.jpg
This came out shortly after midnight.
Thanks for the 11/23/63 Boston Globe article, Tony.
It's interesting, indeed, to see that despite Dr. Perry's initial
guesswork about the throat wound being one of ENTRY, the media was (on
Sat., Nov. 23!) also theorizing about the throat wound being an EXIT wound
as well....
"The rather meager medical details attributed to Dr. Malcolm Perry, the
attending surgeon, described the bullet as entering just below the Adam's
Apple and leaving by the back of the head. Since that statement Friday
afternoon, it is believed from determining the site of the firing that the
bullet entered the back of the head first and came out just under the
Adam's Apple." -- Boston Globe; 11/23/63
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-h5LGtiXhTGA/W0Uk7VDW26I/AAAAAAABPQ4/_eyn0AQOhAQLte-lmerJMZUfpCVyIPMPQCLcBGAs/s1600/The-Boston-Globe-11-23-63.jpg
The throat wound was NOT an EXIT. It was an entry as suggested by
Perry and Carrico, who said it might be either entry or exit. But the
No, they were idiots and did notthing but GUESS.
Post by mainframetech
final bit of information was seen during the autopsy, and later spoken
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So the proof was in the body, which showed that no bullet left the body
of JFK through the throat wound, therefore the SBT is dead, and there was
a conspiracy.
You don't use a probe on a bullet wound. That's stupid.
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
conclusion that he reached during the autopsy was that the bullet didn't
transit and must have fallen out. It didn't seem to make a lot of sense
Someone told them it probably came out during heart massage.
Post by d***@gmail.com
but there was really no choice based on 1) there was no exit wound and 2)
x-rays indicated there was no embedded bullet.
With that type of ammo there will almost NEVER be en embedded bullet
except for at the end of 44 inches of Pondersosa Pine.
The LNs can sure go to extremes to avoid the simple facts. Consider
that the pathologists at Bethesda had orders to make it look like the
cause of death as from a bullet from above and behind. As well they would
be ordered to remove ALL bullets from the body, so that no other weapon
than the MC rifle would be proven to have also helped in the killing.
Tracheotomies are usually small, neat slits enough to get a tube into to
allow breathing. Yet the autopsy photos show a large messy gash at the
throat of JFK. I suggest to you that came from Humes and Boswell probing
around in the neck to find the bullet which probably hit the spine and
stopped there, so they could remove it.
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that conclusion was reflected in his first draft and then,
after the Perry conversation, it all became much clearer and made a lot
It was like a light blub went off in his head and he figured it out
without having to go back and dissecting and examining the wounds. And the
cover-up keeps telling us that we can only figure it out if we ourseles
examine the body. OK< let's examine the body.
Post by d***@gmail.com
more sense. He changed his conclusion. (NOTE: The changed conclusion was
something FBI agents Sibert & O'Neill were unaware of and explains why
their report mentions the conclusion they overheard while at the autopsy.)
Yes, I seriously doubt and no one has been able to ptove that it was the
2 FBI agents who INVENTED the Ice Bullet Theory (IBT).
OK, I'll prove it for you. In the ARRB testimony of James Sibert, FBI
"Can you tell me, was the phone call made
to Mr. Killion before or after the body was
unloaded from the casket?
A: Oh, that was after the body was removed it
was on the autopsy table, and the autopsy was in
progress. Because the reason I made that call was
that the pathologists said, ‘There’s no exit to
this back wound,” and probed it with rubber glove
and a chrome probe.
Q: okay.
A: So, that’s when I called and thought maybe
there was some type of bullet that would
disintegate. There just was no bullet that could
be located."
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that Humes may have been somewhat embarrassed about his 1st
conclusion. That may explain why he did elaborate as to what those
Ya think?
He was embarrassed by his incompetence.
Post by d***@gmail.com
"errors" might have been. Those errors might have been: 1) Generally,
before beginning an autopsy, the pathologist converses with any doctors
who previously treated the victim for the wounds being analyzed. 2) The
Only in a real, legal autopsy. Not in a cover-up. When you know the victim
was killed by the Mayor's brother, you don't ask the attending physician
if any facts point to it being an inside job. That's not polite.
Post by d***@gmail.com
clothing of a shooting victim is often relevant. Humes never examined
Kennedy's shirt/tie. I'm not sure whether he even had access to them so it
So what? Leave that to the FBI.
Post by d***@gmail.com
may not have been his fault. But he could have, at least, inquired about
it. 3) He didn't track the wound. That seemed to be more in the interest
He was ORDERED not to examine the back wound.
You still don't dare to say the word cover-up.
Maybe you could be like Hosty and claim it was a "Benign" cover-up.
See if you can gather up your courage to do that.
Post by d***@gmail.com
of expediency (being pressured to hurry) and not protocol. 4) Finally, the
conclusion that a bullet fired from a rifle would only leave a shallow
wound in soft tissue - and fall out - seems quite unlikely on a common
sense level. I think Humes even realized that, which explains why it was
Common sense? Are you nuts?
Let's look into the sworn testimony of Jerrol Custer, X-ray
"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine. and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I’d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back-And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That’s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That’s about,
I’d say an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."
Custer ARRB testimony, page 53
Sonometer = Centimeter
No, let's not keep repeating the same stupid story 1,000 times and
saying tha merely repeating it makes it true.
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
so perplexing (to all three pathologists) during the actual autopsy.
Of course, this is when the CTs go crazy and scream "He didn't track the
wound!" or "He could only insert his pinkie a short distance into the
wound!"
No competent doctor just inserts his pinky.
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
True, but Humes was not a very experienced pathologist.
He was a paper pusher.
Post by mainframetech
Chris
bigdog
2018-07-14 03:49:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
This is mostly for David Von Pein, but I'll assume others might want to
chime in. I read a lot of David's stuff and I ran across this about Dr.
James Humes burning his notes.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-78.html#Dr-Humes
"The reason Humes burned a first draft of the autopsy report isn't quite
as clear, because that document wasn't stained with JFK's blood. But Humes
stated that he burned that draft because it contained some errors of some
kind. Therefore, Humes rewrote the draft and burned the inaccurate copy."
- David Von Pein
Yes, it is not quite so clear why he burned the 1st draft after already
burning his notes for the very clear (and articulated) reason of having
blood stains on it.
So you mean YOU can't figure it out. Some of us have.
Please don't be honest and say the word coverup.
Think of it as a minor correction. Like maybe he spotted a TYPO as you
often do. So he forgot to capitalize President or something.
Maybe he forgot the medical term for back.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I've often thought that Humes may have written the 1st draft BEFORE having
the telephone conversation with Dr. Perry (Parkland) and discovered (for
Well, he said he did. Don't you beliieve him?
Maybe the FBI told him that there is no such thing as an Ice Bullet.
Post by d***@gmail.com
the first time) that there was a bullet wound in the throat. The
Yes, even a klutz like YOU can SEE the throat wound. But then again you're
not a doctor. The original theory when they found out about it was that
the bullet hit the back of the head and exited the throat. Now aren't you
glad I'm here to show you things you never knew about before?
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Globe11-23-63.jpg
This came out shortly after midnight.
Thanks for the 11/23/63 Boston Globe article, Tony.
It's interesting, indeed, to see that despite Dr. Perry's initial
guesswork about the throat wound being one of ENTRY, the media was (on
Sat., Nov. 23!) also theorizing about the throat wound being an EXIT wound
as well....
"The rather meager medical details attributed to Dr. Malcolm Perry, the
attending surgeon, described the bullet as entering just below the Adam's
Apple and leaving by the back of the head. Since that statement Friday
afternoon, it is believed from determining the site of the firing that the
bullet entered the back of the head first and came out just under the
Adam's Apple." -- Boston Globe; 11/23/63
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-h5LGtiXhTGA/W0Uk7VDW26I/AAAAAAABPQ4/_eyn0AQOhAQLte-lmerJMZUfpCVyIPMPQCLcBGAs/s1600/The-Boston-Globe-11-23-63.jpg
The throat wound was NOT an EXIT. It was an entry as suggested by
Perry and Carrico, who said it might be either entry or exit. But the
final bit of information was seen during the autopsy, and later spoken
A few days ago you chastised me for playing fingerprint technician and
here you are playing medical examiner. You reject what every competent
medical examiner has concluded and instead substitute your analysis which
is based on sketchy information and a very limited number of photos and
x-rays.
Post by mainframetech
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
Connors account of what the autopsy show is in direct conflict with the
findings by three far more qualified pathologists. So why would you give
more credibility to him than you do to them?
Post by mainframetech
So the proof was in the body, which showed that no bullet left the body
of JFK through the throat wound, therefore the SBT is dead, and there was
a conspiracy.
Poor information leads to poor conclusions.
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
conclusion that he reached during the autopsy was that the bullet didn't
transit and must have fallen out. It didn't seem to make a lot of sense
Someone told them it probably came out during heart massage.
Post by d***@gmail.com
but there was really no choice based on 1) there was no exit wound and 2)
x-rays indicated there was no embedded bullet.
With that type of ammo there will almost NEVER be en embedded bullet
except for at the end of 44 inches of Pondersosa Pine.
The LNs can sure go to extremes to avoid the simple facts. Consider
that the pathologists at Bethesda had orders to make it look like the
cause of death as from a bullet from above and behind.
There were no such orders. You simply assume that because the findings of
the pathologists conflict with what you would rather believe so you are
forced to invent an excuse for that inconvenient fact so you fabricate
this story about orders for which there is no evidence.
Post by mainframetech
As well they would
be ordered to remove ALL bullets from the body, so that no other weapon
than the MC rifle would be proven to have also helped in the killing.
Another fabrication.
Post by mainframetech
Tracheotomies are usually small, neat slits enough to get a tube into to
allow breathing. Yet the autopsy photos show a large messy gash at the
throat of JFK.
I suppose you think a wound would remain a narrow slit despite lots of
fluids draining from the body in the hours from when the incision was made
until the photo was taken. It is preposterous to think they would try to
dig out a bullet that entered the throat from the front since it would
penetrate so deeply. In fact even a medium powered bullet would have
exited the back of the neck. From your proposed location on the SoGK and
the 15 degree angle of attack, it would exit from the back right of the
neck if JFK were facing straight ahead. In the last view we had of him
before the bullet struck he was turned slightly to his right which would
make for an even sharper angle of entry and an exit out the right side of
his neck. Really basic geometry.
Post by mainframetech
I suggest to you that came from Humes and Boswell probing
around in the neck to find the bullet which probably hit the spine and
stopped there, so they could remove it.
Had that happened, JFK would have been paralyzed and unable to lift his
arms. This is what happened to MLK and that bullet went through his
jawbone, not the soft tissue of his throat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Martin_Luther_King_Jr.

"King had gone out onto the balcony and was standing near his room when he
was struck at 6:01 p.m. by a single .30-06 bullet fired from a Remington
Model 760 rifle.[13] The bullet entered through King's right cheek,
breaking his jaw and several vertebrae as it traveled down his spinal
cord, severing his jugular vein and major arteries in the process, before
lodging in his shoulder. The force of the shot ripped King's necktie off.
King fell violently backward onto the balcony, unconscious."
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that conclusion was reflected in his first draft and then,
after the Perry conversation, it all became much clearer and made a lot
It was like a light blub went off in his head and he figured it out
without having to go back and dissecting and examining the wounds. And the
cover-up keeps telling us that we can only figure it out if we ourseles
examine the body. OK< let's examine the body.
Post by d***@gmail.com
more sense. He changed his conclusion. (NOTE: The changed conclusion was
something FBI agents Sibert & O'Neill were unaware of and explains why
their report mentions the conclusion they overheard while at the autopsy.)
Yes, I seriously doubt and no one has been able to ptove that it was the
2 FBI agents who INVENTED the Ice Bullet Theory (IBT).
OK, I'll prove it for you. In the ARRB testimony of James Sibert, FBI
"Can you tell me, was the phone call made
to Mr. Killion before or after the body was
unloaded from the casket?
A: Oh, that was after the body was removed it
was on the autopsy table, and the autopsy was in
progress. Because the reason I made that call was
that the pathologists said, ‘There’s no exit to
this back wound,” and probed it with rubber glove
and a chrome probe.
Q: okay.
A: So, that’s when I called and thought maybe
there was some type of bullet that would
disintegate. There just was no bullet that could
be located."
A judgement made in ignorance of the fact that the exit wound had been
obliterated by the tracheostomy incision. Once it was discovered that a
tracheostomy incision had been made over a bullet hole, the mystery was
cleared up. They had their exit wound and dismissed the more bizarre ideas
that had been floated.
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that Humes may have been somewhat embarrassed about his 1st
conclusion. That may explain why he did elaborate as to what those
Ya think?
He was embarrassed by his incompetence.
Post by d***@gmail.com
"errors" might have been. Those errors might have been: 1) Generally,
before beginning an autopsy, the pathologist converses with any doctors
who previously treated the victim for the wounds being analyzed. 2) The
Only in a real, legal autopsy. Not in a cover-up. When you know the victim
was killed by the Mayor's brother, you don't ask the attending physician
if any facts point to it being an inside job. That's not polite.
Post by d***@gmail.com
clothing of a shooting victim is often relevant. Humes never examined
Kennedy's shirt/tie. I'm not sure whether he even had access to them so it
So what? Leave that to the FBI.
Post by d***@gmail.com
may not have been his fault. But he could have, at least, inquired about
it. 3) He didn't track the wound. That seemed to be more in the interest
He was ORDERED not to examine the back wound.
You still don't dare to say the word cover-up.
Maybe you could be like Hosty and claim it was a "Benign" cover-up.
See if you can gather up your courage to do that.
Post by d***@gmail.com
of expediency (being pressured to hurry) and not protocol. 4) Finally, the
conclusion that a bullet fired from a rifle would only leave a shallow
wound in soft tissue - and fall out - seems quite unlikely on a common
sense level. I think Humes even realized that, which explains why it was
Common sense? Are you nuts?
Let's look into the sworn testimony of Jerrol Custer, X-ray
"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine. and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I’d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back-And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That’s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That’s about,
I’d say an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."
Custer ARRB testimony, page 53
Sonometer = Centimeter
Why do you keep saying Sonometer = Centimeter. They aren't even related.
Anyone who used one term in place of the other is clueless. Custer is the
only person in the room who claimed a bullet fell out of JFK's back and
was quickly scooped up by Finck. The FBI agents didn't report that nor did
the pathologists or the other technicians. The body was on a metal table
and a bullet dropping out would have made a clank which would have been
easily audible.
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
so perplexing (to all three pathologists) during the actual autopsy.
Of course, this is when the CTs go crazy and scream "He didn't track the
wound!" or "He could only insert his pinkie a short distance into the
wound!"
No competent doctor just inserts his pinky.
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
True, but Humes was not a very experienced pathologist.
He was a very experienced pathologist. Unfortunately he was not
experienced in gun shot autopsies nor were Boswell or any of the
technicians. Finck was the one member of the team who had such experience.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-14 23:47:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
This is mostly for David Von Pein, but I'll assume others might want to
chime in. I read a lot of David's stuff and I ran across this about Dr.
James Humes burning his notes.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-78.html#Dr-Humes
"The reason Humes burned a first draft of the autopsy report isn't quite
as clear, because that document wasn't stained with JFK's blood. But Humes
stated that he burned that draft because it contained some errors of some
kind. Therefore, Humes rewrote the draft and burned the inaccurate copy."
- David Von Pein
Yes, it is not quite so clear why he burned the 1st draft after already
burning his notes for the very clear (and articulated) reason of having
blood stains on it.
So you mean YOU can't figure it out. Some of us have.
Please don't be honest and say the word coverup.
Think of it as a minor correction. Like maybe he spotted a TYPO as you
often do. So he forgot to capitalize President or something.
Maybe he forgot the medical term for back.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I've often thought that Humes may have written the 1st draft BEFORE having
the telephone conversation with Dr. Perry (Parkland) and discovered (for
Well, he said he did. Don't you beliieve him?
Maybe the FBI told him that there is no such thing as an Ice Bullet.
Post by d***@gmail.com
the first time) that there was a bullet wound in the throat. The
Yes, even a klutz like YOU can SEE the throat wound. But then again you're
not a doctor. The original theory when they found out about it was that
the bullet hit the back of the head and exited the throat. Now aren't you
glad I'm here to show you things you never knew about before?
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Globe11-23-63.jpg
This came out shortly after midnight.
Thanks for the 11/23/63 Boston Globe article, Tony.
It's interesting, indeed, to see that despite Dr. Perry's initial
guesswork about the throat wound being one of ENTRY, the media was (on
Sat., Nov. 23!) also theorizing about the throat wound being an EXIT wound
as well....
"The rather meager medical details attributed to Dr. Malcolm Perry, the
attending surgeon, described the bullet as entering just below the Adam's
Apple and leaving by the back of the head. Since that statement Friday
afternoon, it is believed from determining the site of the firing that the
bullet entered the back of the head first and came out just under the
Adam's Apple." -- Boston Globe; 11/23/63
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-h5LGtiXhTGA/W0Uk7VDW26I/AAAAAAABPQ4/_eyn0AQOhAQLte-lmerJMZUfpCVyIPMPQCLcBGAs/s1600/The-Boston-Globe-11-23-63.jpg
The throat wound was NOT an EXIT. It was an entry as suggested by
Perry and Carrico, who said it might be either entry or exit. But the
final bit of information was seen during the autopsy, and later spoken
A few days ago you chastised me for playing fingerprint technician and
here you are playing medical examiner. You reject what every competent
medical examiner has concluded and instead substitute your analysis which
is based on sketchy information and a very limited number of photos and
x-rays.
They do not all agree. Only a couple of them said ice bullet.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles???the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
Connors account of what the autopsy show is in direct conflict with the
findings by three far more qualified pathologists. So why would you give
more credibility to him than you do to them?
So you cherrypick the witnesses you like.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
So the proof was in the body, which showed that no bullet left the body
of JFK through the throat wound, therefore the SBT is dead, and there was
a conspiracy.
Poor information leads to poor conclusions.
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
conclusion that he reached during the autopsy was that the bullet didn't
transit and must have fallen out. It didn't seem to make a lot of sense
Someone told them it probably came out during heart massage.
Post by d***@gmail.com
but there was really no choice based on 1) there was no exit wound and 2)
x-rays indicated there was no embedded bullet.
With that type of ammo there will almost NEVER be en embedded bullet
except for at the end of 44 inches of Pondersosa Pine.
The LNs can sure go to extremes to avoid the simple facts. Consider
that the pathologists at Bethesda had orders to make it look like the
cause of death as from a bullet from above and behind.
There were no such orders. You simply assume that because the findings of
the pathologists conflict with what you would rather believe so you are
forced to invent an excuse for that inconvenient fact so you fabricate
this story about orders for which there is no evidence.
Post by mainframetech
As well they would
be ordered to remove ALL bullets from the body, so that no other weapon
than the MC rifle would be proven to have also helped in the killing.
Another fabrication.
Post by mainframetech
Tracheotomies are usually small, neat slits enough to get a tube into to
allow breathing. Yet the autopsy photos show a large messy gash at the
throat of JFK.
I suppose you think a wound would remain a narrow slit despite lots of
fluids draining from the body in the hours from when the incision was made
until the photo was taken. It is preposterous to think they would try to
So now you're trying to play forensic pathologist. You know nothing about
bullet wounds. lots of fluids did not drain out of the hole in the neck.
And nothing like that would cause the wound to become so much bigger. If
your theory were true then the back wound would have been an inch wide.
It's nonsense.They had to EXPAND the hole to put the tube in. Then during
handling it got bigger.
Post by bigdog
dig out a bullet that entered the throat from the front since it would
penetrate so deeply. In fact even a medium powered bullet would have
He is imagining a bullet which does not penetrate deeply.
Post by bigdog
exited the back of the neck. From your proposed location on the SoGK and
the 15 degree angle of attack, it would exit from the back right of the
neck if JFK were facing straight ahead. In the last view we had of him
before the bullet struck he was turned slightly to his right which would
make for an even sharper angle of entry and an exit out the right side of
his neck. Really basic geometry.
You can't just ASSuME that it had to exit.
A bullet or fragment hit Connally's thigh and it did not exit.
I'll go out on a limb and conjecture that it had to come from behind
considering how Connally was seated and the door and windshield would
block a shot from the front.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I suggest to you that came from Humes and Boswell probing
around in the neck to find the bullet which probably hit the spine and
stopped there, so they could remove it.
Had that happened, JFK would have been paralyzed and unable to lift his
arms. This is what happened to MLK and that bullet went through his
jawbone, not the soft tissue of his throat.
Depends on where it hit. Which vertebra.
We know a bullet hit the T-1 vertebra. It had a hairline fracture. That
would excite the C8 nerve, causing his arms to go up.
Post by bigdog
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Martin_Luther_King_Jr.
"King had gone out onto the balcony and was standing near his room when he
was struck at 6:01 p.m. by a single .30-06 bullet fired from a Remington
Model 760 rifle.[13] The bullet entered through King's right cheek,
breaking his jaw and several vertebrae as it traveled down his spinal
cord, severing his jugular vein and major arteries in the process, before
lodging in his shoulder. The force of the shot ripped King's necktie off.
King fell violently backward onto the balcony, unconscious."
Yes, so you now have to admit that a bullet's path can be changed by
hitting the spine.

So, how could the impact of the bullet from the front cause him to go
backward violently? You said that was impossible in the JFK case. Every
time you open your mouth you prove how hypocritical you are. You don't
care about facts. Only your bias.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that conclusion was reflected in his first draft and then,
after the Perry conversation, it all became much clearer and made a lot
It was like a light blub went off in his head and he figured it out
without having to go back and dissecting and examining the wounds. And the
cover-up keeps telling us that we can only figure it out if we ourseles
examine the body. OK< let's examine the body.
Post by d***@gmail.com
more sense. He changed his conclusion. (NOTE: The changed conclusion was
something FBI agents Sibert & O'Neill were unaware of and explains why
their report mentions the conclusion they overheard while at the autopsy.)
Yes, I seriously doubt and no one has been able to ptove that it was the
2 FBI agents who INVENTED the Ice Bullet Theory (IBT).
OK, I'll prove it for you. In the ARRB testimony of James Sibert, FBI
"Can you tell me, was the phone call made
to Mr. Killion before or after the body was
unloaded from the casket?
A: Oh, that was after the body was removed it
was on the autopsy table, and the autopsy was in
progress. Because the reason I made that call was
that the pathologists said, ???There???s no exit to
this back wound,??? and probed it with rubber glove
and a chrome probe.
Q: okay.
A: So, that???s when I called and thought maybe
there was some type of bullet that would
disintegate. There just was no bullet that could
be located."
A judgement made in ignorance of the fact that the exit wound had been
obliterated by the tracheostomy incision. Once it was discovered that a
tracheostomy incision had been made over a bullet hole, the mystery was
cleared up. They had their exit wound and dismissed the more bizarre ideas
that had been floated.
Sure, but how come all the forensic pathologists can see it?
How come even YOU can see it?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that Humes may have been somewhat embarrassed about his 1st
conclusion. That may explain why he did elaborate as to what those
Ya think?
He was embarrassed by his incompetence.
Post by d***@gmail.com
"errors" might have been. Those errors might have been: 1) Generally,
before beginning an autopsy, the pathologist converses with any doctors
who previously treated the victim for the wounds being analyzed. 2) The
Only in a real, legal autopsy. Not in a cover-up. When you know the victim
was killed by the Mayor's brother, you don't ask the attending physician
if any facts point to it being an inside job. That's not polite.
Post by d***@gmail.com
clothing of a shooting victim is often relevant. Humes never examined
Kennedy's shirt/tie. I'm not sure whether he even had access to them so it
So what? Leave that to the FBI.
Post by d***@gmail.com
may not have been his fault. But he could have, at least, inquired about
it. 3) He didn't track the wound. That seemed to be more in the interest
He was ORDERED not to examine the back wound.
You still don't dare to say the word cover-up.
Maybe you could be like Hosty and claim it was a "Benign" cover-up.
See if you can gather up your courage to do that.
Post by d***@gmail.com
of expediency (being pressured to hurry) and not protocol. 4) Finally, the
conclusion that a bullet fired from a rifle would only leave a shallow
wound in soft tissue - and fall out - seems quite unlikely on a common
sense level. I think Humes even realized that, which explains why it was
Common sense? Are you nuts?
Let's look into the sworn testimony of Jerrol Custer, X-ray
"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine. and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I???d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back-And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That???s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That???s about,
I???d say an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."
Custer ARRB testimony, page 53
Sonometer = Centimeter
Why do you keep saying Sonometer = Centimeter. They aren't even related.
Anyone who used one term in place of the other is clueless. Custer is the
only person in the room who claimed a bullet fell out of JFK's back and
was quickly scooped up by Finck. The FBI agents didn't report that nor did
the pathologists or the other technicians. The body was on a metal table
and a bullet dropping out would have made a clank which would have been
easily audible.
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
so perplexing (to all three pathologists) during the actual autopsy.
Of course, this is when the CTs go crazy and scream "He didn't track the
wound!" or "He could only insert his pinkie a short distance into the
wound!"
No competent doctor just inserts his pinky.
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
True, but Humes was not a very experienced pathologist.
He was a very experienced pathologist. Unfortunately he was not
No, that is not true. Stop saying things that you KNOW are not true.
Post by bigdog
experienced in gun shot autopsies nor were Boswell or any of the
technicians. Finck was the one member of the team who had such experience.
But Finck was ordered NOT to examine the wound.
Cui bono?
mainframetech
2018-07-15 23:46:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
This is mostly for David Von Pein, but I'll assume others might want to
chime in. I read a lot of David's stuff and I ran across this about Dr.
James Humes burning his notes.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-78.html#Dr-Humes
"The reason Humes burned a first draft of the autopsy report isn't quite
as clear, because that document wasn't stained with JFK's blood. But Humes
stated that he burned that draft because it contained some errors of some
kind. Therefore, Humes rewrote the draft and burned the inaccurate copy."
- David Von Pein
Yes, it is not quite so clear why he burned the 1st draft after already
burning his notes for the very clear (and articulated) reason of having
blood stains on it.
So you mean YOU can't figure it out. Some of us have.
Please don't be honest and say the word coverup.
Think of it as a minor correction. Like maybe he spotted a TYPO as you
often do. So he forgot to capitalize President or something.
Maybe he forgot the medical term for back.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I've often thought that Humes may have written the 1st draft BEFORE having
the telephone conversation with Dr. Perry (Parkland) and discovered (for
Well, he said he did. Don't you beliieve him?
Maybe the FBI told him that there is no such thing as an Ice Bullet.
Post by d***@gmail.com
the first time) that there was a bullet wound in the throat. The
Yes, even a klutz like YOU can SEE the throat wound. But then again you're
not a doctor. The original theory when they found out about it was that
the bullet hit the back of the head and exited the throat. Now aren't you
glad I'm here to show you things you never knew about before?
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Globe11-23-63.jpg
This came out shortly after midnight.
Thanks for the 11/23/63 Boston Globe article, Tony.
It's interesting, indeed, to see that despite Dr. Perry's initial
guesswork about the throat wound being one of ENTRY, the media was (on
Sat., Nov. 23!) also theorizing about the throat wound being an EXIT wound
as well....
"The rather meager medical details attributed to Dr. Malcolm Perry, the
attending surgeon, described the bullet as entering just below the Adam's
Apple and leaving by the back of the head. Since that statement Friday
afternoon, it is believed from determining the site of the firing that the
bullet entered the back of the head first and came out just under the
Adam's Apple." -- Boston Globe; 11/23/63
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-h5LGtiXhTGA/W0Uk7VDW26I/AAAAAAABPQ4/_eyn0AQOhAQLte-lmerJMZUfpCVyIPMPQCLcBGAs/s1600/The-Boston-Globe-11-23-63.jpg
The throat wound was NOT an EXIT. It was an entry as suggested by
Perry and Carrico, who said it might be either entry or exit. But the
final bit of information was seen during the autopsy, and later spoken
A few days ago you chastised me for playing fingerprint technician and
here you are playing medical examiner. You reject what every competent
medical examiner has concluded and instead substitute your analysis which
is based on sketchy information and a very limited number of photos and
x-rays.
WRONG again! You'll never learn! I'm not playing medical examiner
by copying out O'Connor's statement. He was there and he saw certain
things, that he said were also seen by the pathologists too. And what he
saw was clearly a different thing than what was reported in the phony AR.
Normally, his comments would probably never have been seen, what with the
order of silence placed on the whole autopsy. But because the public was
unhappy with the phony stories coming out of the government, there had to
be investigations, which freed the men to speak finally.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
Connors account of what the autopsy show is in direct conflict with the
findings by three far more qualified pathologists. So why would you give
more credibility to him than you do to them?
You have got to be kidding! O'Connors did not make a pathologists
"finding", he described something he saw, and he said who also saw it with
him at the same time. He didn't make "findings", he told what he saw.
Anyone with normal abilities could understand him.



In the overview, which you seem not to care for, it shows conspiracy,
and knowing that, changes the way everything has to be looked at. That
includes the autopsy and the ridiculous AR which leaves out critical
information so as to fool the medical examiners.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
So the proof was in the body, which showed that no bullet left the body
of JFK through the throat wound, therefore the SBT is dead, and there was
a conspiracy.
Poor information leads to poor conclusions.
Poor opinions vs. good reporting.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
conclusion that he reached during the autopsy was that the bullet didn't
transit and must have fallen out. It didn't seem to make a lot of sense
Someone told them it probably came out during heart massage.
Post by d***@gmail.com
but there was really no choice based on 1) there was no exit wound and 2)
x-rays indicated there was no embedded bullet.
With that type of ammo there will almost NEVER be en embedded bullet
except for at the end of 44 inches of Pondersosa Pine.
The LNs can sure go to extremes to avoid the simple facts. Consider
that the pathologists at Bethesda had orders to make it look like the
cause of death as from a bullet from above and behind.
There were no such orders. You simply assume that because the findings of
the pathologists conflict with what you would rather believe so you are
forced to invent an excuse for that inconvenient fact so you fabricate
this story about orders for which there is no evidence.
WRONG as usual! Since the real results seen in the body by the autopsy
team members were avoided and a phony AR was created instead, it is
OBVIOUS that orders had to come down to Humes as to what he had to do.
He was not the type to take initiative himself for such a move.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
As well they would
be ordered to remove ALL bullets from the body, so that no other weapon
than the MC rifle would be proven to have also helped in the killing.
Another fabrication.
Post by mainframetech
Tracheotomies are usually small, neat slits enough to get a tube into to
allow breathing. Yet the autopsy photos show a large messy gash at the
throat of JFK.
I suppose you think a wound would remain a narrow slit despite lots of
fluids draining from the body in the hours from when the incision was made
until the photo was taken.
So you believe that fluids draining will make a little slit become a
big messy gash? Hmm.
Post by bigdog
It is preposterous to think they would try to
dig out a bullet that entered the throat from the front since it would
penetrate so deeply. In fact even a medium powered bullet would have
exited the back of the neck.
So you feel that the spine isn't strong enough to stop a bullet when
hit by one. I see.
Post by bigdog
From your proposed location on the SoGK and
the 15 degree angle of attack, it would exit from the back right of the
neck if JFK were facing straight ahead. In the last view we had of him
before the bullet struck he was turned slightly to his right which would
make for an even sharper angle of entry and an exit out the right side of
his neck. Really basic geometry.
Basic yes. Fitting the situation, not for sure.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I suggest to you that came from Humes and Boswell probing
around in the neck to find the bullet which probably hit the spine and
stopped there, so they could remove it.
Had that happened, JFK would have been paralyzed and unable to lift his
arms. This is what happened to MLK and that bullet went through his
jawbone, not the soft tissue of his throat.
Don't be ridiculous! There is no similarity with the 2 cases. and a
throat is soft tissue except where the spine is.
Post by bigdog
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Martin_Luther_King_Jr.
"King had gone out onto the balcony and was standing near his room when he
was struck at 6:01 p.m. by a single .30-06 bullet fired from a Remington
Model 760 rifle.[13] The bullet entered through King's right cheek,
breaking his jaw and several vertebrae as it traveled down his spinal
cord, severing his jugular vein and major arteries in the process, before
lodging in his shoulder. The force of the shot ripped King's necktie off.
King fell violently backward onto the balcony, unconscious."
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that conclusion was reflected in his first draft and then,
after the Perry conversation, it all became much clearer and made a lot
It was like a light blub went off in his head and he figured it out
without having to go back and dissecting and examining the wounds. And the
cover-up keeps telling us that we can only figure it out if we ourseles
examine the body. OK< let's examine the body.
Post by d***@gmail.com
more sense. He changed his conclusion. (NOTE: The changed conclusion was
something FBI agents Sibert & O'Neill were unaware of and explains why
their report mentions the conclusion they overheard while at the autopsy.)
Yes, I seriously doubt and no one has been able to ptove that it was the
2 FBI agents who INVENTED the Ice Bullet Theory (IBT).
OK, I'll prove it for you. In the ARRB testimony of James Sibert, FBI
"Can you tell me, was the phone call made
to Mr. Killion before or after the body was
unloaded from the casket?
A: Oh, that was after the body was removed it
was on the autopsy table, and the autopsy was in
progress. Because the reason I made that call was
that the pathologists said, ‘There’s no exit to
this back wound,” and probed it with rubber glove
and a chrome probe.
Q: okay.
A: So, that’s when I called and thought maybe
there was some type of bullet that would
disintegate. There just was no bullet that could
be located."
A judgement made in ignorance of the fact that the exit wound had been
obliterated by the tracheostomy incision. Once it was discovered that a
tracheostomy incision had been made over a bullet hole, the mystery was
cleared up. They had their exit wound and dismissed the more bizarre ideas
that had been floated.
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that Humes may have been somewhat embarrassed about his 1st
conclusion. That may explain why he did elaborate as to what those
Ya think?
He was embarrassed by his incompetence.
Post by d***@gmail.com
"errors" might have been. Those errors might have been: 1) Generally,
before beginning an autopsy, the pathologist converses with any doctors
who previously treated the victim for the wounds being analyzed. 2) The
Only in a real, legal autopsy. Not in a cover-up. When you know the victim
was killed by the Mayor's brother, you don't ask the attending physician
if any facts point to it being an inside job. That's not polite.
Post by d***@gmail.com
clothing of a shooting victim is often relevant. Humes never examined
Kennedy's shirt/tie. I'm not sure whether he even had access to them so it
So what? Leave that to the FBI.
Post by d***@gmail.com
may not have been his fault. But he could have, at least, inquired about
it. 3) He didn't track the wound. That seemed to be more in the interest
He was ORDERED not to examine the back wound.
You still don't dare to say the word cover-up.
Maybe you could be like Hosty and claim it was a "Benign" cover-up.
See if you can gather up your courage to do that.
Post by d***@gmail.com
of expediency (being pressured to hurry) and not protocol. 4) Finally, the
conclusion that a bullet fired from a rifle would only leave a shallow
wound in soft tissue - and fall out - seems quite unlikely on a common
sense level. I think Humes even realized that, which explains why it was
Common sense? Are you nuts?
Let's look into the sworn testimony of Jerrol Custer, X-ray
"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine. and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I’d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back-And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That’s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That’s about,
I’d say an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."
Custer ARRB testimony, page 53
Sonometer = Centimeter
Why do you keep saying Sonometer = Centimeter. They aren't even related.
Anyone who used one term in place of the other is clueless. Custer is the
only person in the room who claimed a bullet fell out of JFK's back and
was quickly scooped up by Finck. The FBI agents didn't report that nor did
the pathologists or the other technicians. The body was on a metal table
and a bullet dropping out would have made a clank which would have been
easily audible.
First, you seem to have forgotten that the body was being worked on
BEFORE the family and the FBI agents had arrived. There were only Humes
and Boswell, the 2 X-ray Technicians, and a couple from Gawler's.
Second, "clanks" to advise that a bullet needed to be grabbed before it
became evidence of another shooter would be useful. Third, the term
"sonometer" was used among medical personnel, which was one more thing you
were unaware of, as follows:

https://allnurses.com/general-nursing-discussion/-quot-centi-quot-160116.html

https://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/pronouncing-centimeter.283637/

http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/blog/radiology-grammar-police-centimeter-or-sontimeter

A French accent pronouncing 'centimeter' will make it sound like
SON-timeter, and that's how it got started.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
so perplexing (to all three pathologists) during the actual autopsy.
Of course, this is when the CTs go crazy and scream "He didn't track the
wound!" or "He could only insert his pinkie a short distance into the
wound!"
No competent doctor just inserts his pinky.
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
True, but Humes was not a very experienced pathologist.
He was a very experienced pathologist. Unfortunately he was not
experienced in gun shot autopsies nor were Boswell or any of the
technicians. Finck was the one member of the team who had such experience.
There were comments from the medical panels that looked over the work,
that Humes had made a number of mistakes.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-16 22:39:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
This is mostly for David Von Pein, but I'll assume others might want to
chime in. I read a lot of David's stuff and I ran across this about Dr.
James Humes burning his notes.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-78.html#Dr-Humes
"The reason Humes burned a first draft of the autopsy report isn't quite
as clear, because that document wasn't stained with JFK's blood. But Humes
stated that he burned that draft because it contained some errors of some
kind. Therefore, Humes rewrote the draft and burned the inaccurate copy."
- David Von Pein
Yes, it is not quite so clear why he burned the 1st draft after already
burning his notes for the very clear (and articulated) reason of having
blood stains on it.
So you mean YOU can't figure it out. Some of us have.
Please don't be honest and say the word coverup.
Think of it as a minor correction. Like maybe he spotted a TYPO as you
often do. So he forgot to capitalize President or something.
Maybe he forgot the medical term for back.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I've often thought that Humes may have written the 1st draft BEFORE having
the telephone conversation with Dr. Perry (Parkland) and discovered (for
Well, he said he did. Don't you beliieve him?
Maybe the FBI told him that there is no such thing as an Ice Bullet.
Post by d***@gmail.com
the first time) that there was a bullet wound in the throat. The
Yes, even a klutz like YOU can SEE the throat wound. But then again you're
not a doctor. The original theory when they found out about it was that
the bullet hit the back of the head and exited the throat. Now aren't you
glad I'm here to show you things you never knew about before?
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Globe11-23-63.jpg
This came out shortly after midnight.
Thanks for the 11/23/63 Boston Globe article, Tony.
It's interesting, indeed, to see that despite Dr. Perry's initial
guesswork about the throat wound being one of ENTRY, the media was (on
Sat., Nov. 23!) also theorizing about the throat wound being an EXIT wound
as well....
"The rather meager medical details attributed to Dr. Malcolm Perry, the
attending surgeon, described the bullet as entering just below the Adam's
Apple and leaving by the back of the head. Since that statement Friday
afternoon, it is believed from determining the site of the firing that the
bullet entered the back of the head first and came out just under the
Adam's Apple." -- Boston Globe; 11/23/63
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-h5LGtiXhTGA/W0Uk7VDW26I/AAAAAAABPQ4/_eyn0AQOhAQLte-lmerJMZUfpCVyIPMPQCLcBGAs/s1600/The-Boston-Globe-11-23-63.jpg
The throat wound was NOT an EXIT. It was an entry as suggested by
Perry and Carrico, who said it might be either entry or exit. But the
final bit of information was seen during the autopsy, and later spoken
A few days ago you chastised me for playing fingerprint technician and
here you are playing medical examiner. You reject what every competent
medical examiner has concluded and instead substitute your analysis which
is based on sketchy information and a very limited number of photos and
x-rays.
WRONG again! You'll never learn! I'm not playing medical examiner
by copying out O'Connor's statement. He was there and he saw certain
things, that he said were also seen by the pathologists too.
The pathologists said they saw something different than what O'Connor
described but naturally you choose to believe O'Connor and claim the
pathologists lied.
Post by mainframetech
And what he
saw was clearly a different thing than what was reported in the phony AR.
So why do you assume O'Connor is right and the AR is wrong?
Post by mainframetech
Normally, his comments would probably never have been seen, what with the
order of silence placed on the whole autopsy. But because the public was
unhappy with the phony stories coming out of the government, there had to
be investigations, which freed the men to speak finally.
When he had a chance to tell his story under oath to the HSCA interviewer,
he never mentioned any of this. It was only when he began talking to
authors and wasn't under oath that he came up with these embellishments.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
Connors account of what the autopsy show is in direct conflict with the
findings by three far more qualified pathologists. So why would you give
more credibility to him than you do to them?
You have got to be kidding! O'Connors did not make a pathologists
"finding", he described something he saw,
The pathologists described what they saw. I ask you again. Why do you put
more faith in what O'Connor said he saw than what the pathologists said
they saw.
Post by mainframetech
and he said who also saw it with
him at the same time. He didn't make "findings", he told what he saw.
Anyone with normal abilities could understand him.
Anyone with normal abilities could understand what the pathologists said
they saw but for some reason that went over your head.
Post by mainframetech
In the overview, which you seem not to care for, it shows conspiracy,
and knowing that, changes the way everything has to be looked at.
It changes nothing. Silly conspiracy hobbyist figuring has been around
for over 50 years.
Post by mainframetech
That
includes the autopsy and the ridiculous AR which leaves out critical
information so as to fool the medical examiners.
Oh, so now the medical examiners were fooled. Is there no end to your
silliness?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
So the proof was in the body, which showed that no bullet left the body
of JFK through the throat wound, therefore the SBT is dead, and there was
a conspiracy.
Poor information leads to poor conclusions.
Poor opinions vs. good reporting.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
conclusion that he reached during the autopsy was that the bullet didn't
transit and must have fallen out. It didn't seem to make a lot of sense
Someone told them it probably came out during heart massage.
Post by d***@gmail.com
but there was really no choice based on 1) there was no exit wound and 2)
x-rays indicated there was no embedded bullet.
With that type of ammo there will almost NEVER be en embedded bullet
except for at the end of 44 inches of Pondersosa Pine.
The LNs can sure go to extremes to avoid the simple facts. Consider
that the pathologists at Bethesda had orders to make it look like the
cause of death as from a bullet from above and behind.
There were no such orders. You simply assume that because the findings of
the pathologists conflict with what you would rather believe so you are
forced to invent an excuse for that inconvenient fact so you fabricate
this story about orders for which there is no evidence.
WRONG as usual! Since the real results seen in the body by the autopsy
team members
You keep saying that as if all the autopsy team members said they saw what
you are claiming. In reality, it was only the two least qualified people
on the team who said they saw that. The pathologists all said they saw
something different.
Post by mainframetech
were avoided and a phony AR was created instead, it is
OBVIOUS that orders had to come down to Humes as to what he had to do.
He was not the type to take initiative himself for such a move.
So now you are psycho-analyzing Humes.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
As well they would
be ordered to remove ALL bullets from the body, so that no other weapon
than the MC rifle would be proven to have also helped in the killing.
Another fabrication.
Post by mainframetech
Tracheotomies are usually small, neat slits enough to get a tube into to
allow breathing. Yet the autopsy photos show a large messy gash at the
throat of JFK.
I suppose you think a wound would remain a narrow slit despite lots of
fluids draining from the body in the hours from when the incision was made
until the photo was taken.
So you believe that fluids draining will make a little slit become a
big messy gash? Hmm.
Of course it will. As fluids drain out, there will be contraction of
tissue. I've already told you about a simple experiment you can perform.
Cut a neat slice into the skin of an apple. Leave the apple out where it
will begin to dehydrate. You will find that the neat little slice will
begin to open up.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
It is preposterous to think they would try to
dig out a bullet that entered the throat from the front since it would
penetrate so deeply. In fact even a medium powered bullet would have
exited the back of the neck.
So you feel that the spine isn't strong enough to stop a bullet when
hit by one. I see.
JFK's spine was not hit by a bullet. If he had been it would have
paralyzed him. In addition, you have proposed a bullet entering the center
of JFK's throat at a 15 degree angle. That isn't going to hit his spine. I
know geometry isn't your strong suit but I would think even you could
figure that out.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
From your proposed location on the SoGK and
the 15 degree angle of attack, it would exit from the back right of the
neck if JFK were facing straight ahead. In the last view we had of him
before the bullet struck he was turned slightly to his right which would
make for an even sharper angle of entry and an exit out the right side of
his neck. Really basic geometry.
Basic yes. Fitting the situation, not for sure.
By that you mean the geometry doesn't fit your beliefs so we must suspend
geometric analysis.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I suggest to you that came from Humes and Boswell probing
around in the neck to find the bullet which probably hit the spine and
stopped there, so they could remove it.
Had that happened, JFK would have been paralyzed and unable to lift his
arms. This is what happened to MLK and that bullet went through his
jawbone, not the soft tissue of his throat.
Don't be ridiculous! There is no similarity with the 2 cases. and a
throat is soft tissue except where the spine is.
Yes it is and a bullet from the SoGK hitting JFK in the center of his
throat would not hit his spine. It would exit to the right of his
spine.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Martin_Luther_King_Jr.
"King had gone out onto the balcony and was standing near his room when he
was struck at 6:01 p.m. by a single .30-06 bullet fired from a Remington
Model 760 rifle.[13] The bullet entered through King's right cheek,
breaking his jaw and several vertebrae as it traveled down his spinal
cord, severing his jugular vein and major arteries in the process, before
lodging in his shoulder. The force of the shot ripped King's necktie off.
King fell violently backward onto the balcony, unconscious."
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that conclusion was reflected in his first draft and then,
after the Perry conversation, it all became much clearer and made a lot
It was like a light blub went off in his head and he figured it out
without having to go back and dissecting and examining the wounds. And the
cover-up keeps telling us that we can only figure it out if we ourseles
examine the body. OK< let's examine the body.
Post by d***@gmail.com
more sense. He changed his conclusion. (NOTE: The changed conclusion was
something FBI agents Sibert & O'Neill were unaware of and explains why
their report mentions the conclusion they overheard while at the autopsy.)
Yes, I seriously doubt and no one has been able to ptove that it was the
2 FBI agents who INVENTED the Ice Bullet Theory (IBT).
OK, I'll prove it for you. In the ARRB testimony of James Sibert, FBI
"Can you tell me, was the phone call made
to Mr. Killion before or after the body was
unloaded from the casket?
A: Oh, that was after the body was removed it
was on the autopsy table, and the autopsy was in
progress. Because the reason I made that call was
that the pathologists said, ‘There’s no exit to
this back wound,” and probed it with rubber glove
and a chrome probe.
Q: okay.
A: So, that’s when I called and thought maybe
there was some type of bullet that would
disintegate. There just was no bullet that could
be located."
A judgement made in ignorance of the fact that the exit wound had been
obliterated by the tracheostomy incision. Once it was discovered that a
tracheostomy incision had been made over a bullet hole, the mystery was
cleared up. They had their exit wound and dismissed the more bizarre ideas
that had been floated.
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that Humes may have been somewhat embarrassed about his 1st
conclusion. That may explain why he did elaborate as to what those
Ya think?
He was embarrassed by his incompetence.
Post by d***@gmail.com
"errors" might have been. Those errors might have been: 1) Generally,
before beginning an autopsy, the pathologist converses with any doctors
who previously treated the victim for the wounds being analyzed. 2) The
Only in a real, legal autopsy. Not in a cover-up. When you know the victim
was killed by the Mayor's brother, you don't ask the attending physician
if any facts point to it being an inside job. That's not polite.
Post by d***@gmail.com
clothing of a shooting victim is often relevant. Humes never examined
Kennedy's shirt/tie. I'm not sure whether he even had access to them so it
So what? Leave that to the FBI.
Post by d***@gmail.com
may not have been his fault. But he could have, at least, inquired about
it. 3) He didn't track the wound. That seemed to be more in the interest
He was ORDERED not to examine the back wound.
You still don't dare to say the word cover-up.
Maybe you could be like Hosty and claim it was a "Benign" cover-up.
See if you can gather up your courage to do that.
Post by d***@gmail.com
of expediency (being pressured to hurry) and not protocol. 4) Finally, the
conclusion that a bullet fired from a rifle would only leave a shallow
wound in soft tissue - and fall out - seems quite unlikely on a common
sense level. I think Humes even realized that, which explains why it was
Common sense? Are you nuts?
Let's look into the sworn testimony of Jerrol Custer, X-ray
"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine. and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I’d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back-And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That’s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That’s about,
I’d say an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."
Custer ARRB testimony, page 53
Sonometer = Centimeter
Why do you keep saying Sonometer = Centimeter. They aren't even related.
Anyone who used one term in place of the other is clueless. Custer is the
only person in the room who claimed a bullet fell out of JFK's back and
was quickly scooped up by Finck. The FBI agents didn't report that nor did
the pathologists or the other technicians. The body was on a metal table
and a bullet dropping out would have made a clank which would have been
easily audible.
First, you seem to have forgotten that the body was being worked on
BEFORE the family and the FBI agents had arrived.
I haven't forgotten anything. That didn't happen except in the
imaginations of silly conspiracy hobbyists.
Post by mainframetech
There were only Humes
and Boswell, the 2 X-ray Technicians, and a couple from Gawler's.
Second, "clanks" to advise that a bullet needed to be grabbed before it
became evidence of another shooter would be useful. Third, the term
"sonometer" was used among medical personnel, which was one more thing you
https://allnurses.com/general-nursing-discussion/-quot-centi-quot-160116.html
https://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/pronouncing-centimeter.283637/
http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/blog/radiology-grammar-police-centimeter-or-sontimeter
A French accent pronouncing 'centimeter' will make it sound like
SON-timeter, and that's how it got started.
Who on the autopsy team had a French accent? Can you cite a competent
medical examiner who substitutes sonometer for centimeter?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
so perplexing (to all three pathologists) during the actual autopsy.
Of course, this is when the CTs go crazy and scream "He didn't track the
wound!" or "He could only insert his pinkie a short distance into the
wound!"
No competent doctor just inserts his pinky.
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
True, but Humes was not a very experienced pathologist.
He was a very experienced pathologist. Unfortunately he was not
experienced in gun shot autopsies nor were Boswell or any of the
technicians. Finck was the one member of the team who had such experience.
There were comments from the medical panels that looked over the work,
that Humes had made a number of mistakes.
Yes he did but the panels still agreed with the basic finding that JFK was
hit by two bullets, both fired from above and behind him.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-17 21:52:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
This is mostly for David Von Pein, but I'll assume others might want to
chime in. I read a lot of David's stuff and I ran across this about Dr.
James Humes burning his notes.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-78.html#Dr-Humes
"The reason Humes burned a first draft of the autopsy report isn't quite
as clear, because that document wasn't stained with JFK's blood. But Humes
stated that he burned that draft because it contained some errors of some
kind. Therefore, Humes rewrote the draft and burned the inaccurate copy."
- David Von Pein
Yes, it is not quite so clear why he burned the 1st draft after already
burning his notes for the very clear (and articulated) reason of having
blood stains on it.
So you mean YOU can't figure it out. Some of us have.
Please don't be honest and say the word coverup.
Think of it as a minor correction. Like maybe he spotted a TYPO as you
often do. So he forgot to capitalize President or something.
Maybe he forgot the medical term for back.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I've often thought that Humes may have written the 1st draft BEFORE having
the telephone conversation with Dr. Perry (Parkland) and discovered (for
Well, he said he did. Don't you beliieve him?
Maybe the FBI told him that there is no such thing as an Ice Bullet.
Post by d***@gmail.com
the first time) that there was a bullet wound in the throat. The
Yes, even a klutz like YOU can SEE the throat wound. But then again you're
not a doctor. The original theory when they found out about it was that
the bullet hit the back of the head and exited the throat. Now aren't you
glad I'm here to show you things you never knew about before?
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Globe11-23-63.jpg
This came out shortly after midnight.
Thanks for the 11/23/63 Boston Globe article, Tony.
It's interesting, indeed, to see that despite Dr. Perry's initial
guesswork about the throat wound being one of ENTRY, the media was (on
Sat., Nov. 23!) also theorizing about the throat wound being an EXIT wound
as well....
"The rather meager medical details attributed to Dr. Malcolm Perry, the
attending surgeon, described the bullet as entering just below the Adam's
Apple and leaving by the back of the head. Since that statement Friday
afternoon, it is believed from determining the site of the firing that the
bullet entered the back of the head first and came out just under the
Adam's Apple." -- Boston Globe; 11/23/63
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-h5LGtiXhTGA/W0Uk7VDW26I/AAAAAAABPQ4/_eyn0AQOhAQLte-lmerJMZUfpCVyIPMPQCLcBGAs/s1600/The-Boston-Globe-11-23-63.jpg
The throat wound was NOT an EXIT. It was an entry as suggested by
Perry and Carrico, who said it might be either entry or exit. But the
final bit of information was seen during the autopsy, and later spoken
A few days ago you chastised me for playing fingerprint technician and
here you are playing medical examiner. You reject what every competent
medical examiner has concluded and instead substitute your analysis which
is based on sketchy information and a very limited number of photos and
x-rays.
WRONG again! You'll never learn! I'm not playing medical examiner
by copying out O'Connor's statement. He was there and he saw certain
things, that he said were also seen by the pathologists too.
The pathologists said they saw something different than what O'Connor
described but naturally you choose to believe O'Connor and claim the
pathologists lied.
Post by mainframetech
And what he
saw was clearly a different thing than what was reported in the phony AR.
So why do you assume O'Connor is right and the AR is wrong?
Post by mainframetech
Normally, his comments would probably never have been seen, what with the
order of silence placed on the whole autopsy. But because the public was
unhappy with the phony stories coming out of the government, there had to
be investigations, which freed the men to speak finally.
When he had a chance to tell his story under oath to the HSCA interviewer,
he never mentioned any of this. It was only when he began talking to
authors and wasn't under oath that he came up with these embellishments.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles???the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
Connors account of what the autopsy show is in direct conflict with the
findings by three far more qualified pathologists. So why would you give
more credibility to him than you do to them?
You have got to be kidding! O'Connors did not make a pathologists
"finding", he described something he saw,
The pathologists described what they saw. I ask you again. Why do you put
more faith in what O'Connor said he saw than what the pathologists said
they saw.
Post by mainframetech
and he said who also saw it with
him at the same time. He didn't make "findings", he told what he saw.
Anyone with normal abilities could understand him.
Anyone with normal abilities could understand what the pathologists said
they saw but for some reason that went over your head.
Post by mainframetech
In the overview, which you seem not to care for, it shows conspiracy,
and knowing that, changes the way everything has to be looked at.
It changes nothing. Silly conspiracy hobbyist figuring has been around
for over 50 years.
Post by mainframetech
That
includes the autopsy and the ridiculous AR which leaves out critical
information so as to fool the medical examiners.
Oh, so now the medical examiners were fooled. Is there no end to your
silliness?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
So the proof was in the body, which showed that no bullet left the body
of JFK through the throat wound, therefore the SBT is dead, and there was
a conspiracy.
Poor information leads to poor conclusions.
Poor opinions vs. good reporting.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
conclusion that he reached during the autopsy was that the bullet didn't
transit and must have fallen out. It didn't seem to make a lot of sense
Someone told them it probably came out during heart massage.
Post by d***@gmail.com
but there was really no choice based on 1) there was no exit wound and 2)
x-rays indicated there was no embedded bullet.
With that type of ammo there will almost NEVER be en embedded bullet
except for at the end of 44 inches of Pondersosa Pine.
The LNs can sure go to extremes to avoid the simple facts. Consider
that the pathologists at Bethesda had orders to make it look like the
cause of death as from a bullet from above and behind.
There were no such orders. You simply assume that because the findings of
the pathologists conflict with what you would rather believe so you are
forced to invent an excuse for that inconvenient fact so you fabricate
this story about orders for which there is no evidence.
WRONG as usual! Since the real results seen in the body by the autopsy
team members
You keep saying that as if all the autopsy team members said they saw what
you are claiming. In reality, it was only the two least qualified people
on the team who said they saw that. The pathologists all said they saw
something different.
Post by mainframetech
were avoided and a phony AR was created instead, it is
OBVIOUS that orders had to come down to Humes as to what he had to do.
He was not the type to take initiative himself for such a move.
So now you are psycho-analyzing Humes.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
As well they would
be ordered to remove ALL bullets from the body, so that no other weapon
than the MC rifle would be proven to have also helped in the killing.
Another fabrication.
Post by mainframetech
Tracheotomies are usually small, neat slits enough to get a tube into to
allow breathing. Yet the autopsy photos show a large messy gash at the
throat of JFK.
I suppose you think a wound would remain a narrow slit despite lots of
fluids draining from the body in the hours from when the incision was made
until the photo was taken.
So you believe that fluids draining will make a little slit become a
big messy gash? Hmm.
Of course it will. As fluids drain out, there will be contraction of
tissue. I've already told you about a simple experiment you can perform.
Cut a neat slice into the skin of an apple. Leave the apple out where it
will begin to dehydrate. You will find that the neat little slice will
begin to open up.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
It is preposterous to think they would try to
dig out a bullet that entered the throat from the front since it would
penetrate so deeply. In fact even a medium powered bullet would have
exited the back of the neck.
So you feel that the spine isn't strong enough to stop a bullet when
hit by one. I see.
JFK's spine was not hit by a bullet. If he had been it would have
Wrong, moosebreath. Dr. Baden confirmed and told me in person that the
bullet grazed the tip of T-1. Even to fracture it.

Your point about paralyzing is important, but you know nothing about it.
The bullet hit the transverse process of T-1, but it did not paralyze JFK.
In fact it produced a reflex reaction when its path excited the C-8 nerve
next to the transverse process of the right side of T-1. That nerve goes
around to the back of the forearm and caused it to pull up. Similar to the
famous Thorburn reflex which involves a different nerve.

Thorburn position A reflex position assumed by the elbows immediately
after injury to the spinal cord in the lower cervical region. The Thorburn
position???is of broad popular interest as it was assumed by John F
Kennedy at the time of his assassination in Dallas in 1963, and is
regarded as evidence against the popular ???JFK assassination
conspiracy??? theory.
Post by bigdog
paralyzed him. In addition, you have proposed a bullet entering the center
of JFK's throat at a 15 degree angle. That isn't going to hit his spine. I
know geometry isn't your strong suit but I would think even you could
figure that out.
We can't be sure exactly what he is proposing.
You have to keep checking back here every day.

Dr. Perry was suggesting an entrance wound, but he didn't know the angle.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
From your proposed location on the SoGK and
the 15 degree angle of attack, it would exit from the back right of the
neck if JFK were facing straight ahead. In the last view we had of him
before the bullet struck he was turned slightly to his right which would
make for an even sharper angle of entry and an exit out the right side of
his neck. Really basic geometry.
Basic yes. Fitting the situation, not for sure.
By that you mean the geometry doesn't fit your beliefs so we must suspend
geometric analysis.
SHOW me. Do you even have a map?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I suggest to you that came from Humes and Boswell probing
around in the neck to find the bullet which probably hit the spine and
stopped there, so they could remove it.
Had that happened, JFK would have been paralyzed and unable to lift his
arms. This is what happened to MLK and that bullet went through his
jawbone, not the soft tissue of his throat.
Don't be ridiculous! There is no similarity with the 2 cases. and a
throat is soft tissue except where the spine is.
Yes it is and a bullet from the SoGK hitting JFK in the center of his
throat would not hit his spine. It would exit to the right of his
spine.
Not sure what you mean. Show me.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Martin_Luther_King_Jr.
"King had gone out onto the balcony and was standing near his room when he
was struck at 6:01 p.m. by a single .30-06 bullet fired from a Remington
Model 760 rifle.[13] The bullet entered through King's right cheek,
breaking his jaw and several vertebrae as it traveled down his spinal
cord, severing his jugular vein and major arteries in the process, before
lodging in his shoulder. The force of the shot ripped King's necktie off.
King fell violently backward onto the balcony, unconscious."
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that conclusion was reflected in his first draft and then,
after the Perry conversation, it all became much clearer and made a lot
It was like a light blub went off in his head and he figured it out
without having to go back and dissecting and examining the wounds. And the
cover-up keeps telling us that we can only figure it out if we ourseles
examine the body. OK< let's examine the body.
Post by d***@gmail.com
more sense. He changed his conclusion. (NOTE: The changed conclusion was
something FBI agents Sibert & O'Neill were unaware of and explains why
their report mentions the conclusion they overheard while at the autopsy.)
Yes, I seriously doubt and no one has been able to ptove that it was the
2 FBI agents who INVENTED the Ice Bullet Theory (IBT).
OK, I'll prove it for you. In the ARRB testimony of James Sibert, FBI
"Can you tell me, was the phone call made
to Mr. Killion before or after the body was
unloaded from the casket?
A: Oh, that was after the body was removed it
was on the autopsy table, and the autopsy was in
progress. Because the reason I made that call was
that the pathologists said, ???There???s no exit to
this back wound,??? and probed it with rubber glove
and a chrome probe.
Q: okay.
A: So, that???s when I called and thought maybe
there was some type of bullet that would
disintegate. There just was no bullet that could
be located."
A judgement made in ignorance of the fact that the exit wound had been
obliterated by the tracheostomy incision. Once it was discovered that a
tracheostomy incision had been made over a bullet hole, the mystery was
cleared up. They had their exit wound and dismissed the more bizarre ideas
that had been floated.
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that Humes may have been somewhat embarrassed about his 1st
conclusion. That may explain why he did elaborate as to what those
Ya think?
He was embarrassed by his incompetence.
Post by d***@gmail.com
"errors" might have been. Those errors might have been: 1) Generally,
before beginning an autopsy, the pathologist converses with any doctors
who previously treated the victim for the wounds being analyzed. 2) The
Only in a real, legal autopsy. Not in a cover-up. When you know the victim
was killed by the Mayor's brother, you don't ask the attending physician
if any facts point to it being an inside job. That's not polite.
Post by d***@gmail.com
clothing of a shooting victim is often relevant. Humes never examined
Kennedy's shirt/tie. I'm not sure whether he even had access to them so it
So what? Leave that to the FBI.
Post by d***@gmail.com
may not have been his fault. But he could have, at least, inquired about
it. 3) He didn't track the wound. That seemed to be more in the interest
He was ORDERED not to examine the back wound.
You still don't dare to say the word cover-up.
Maybe you could be like Hosty and claim it was a "Benign" cover-up.
See if you can gather up your courage to do that.
Post by d***@gmail.com
of expediency (being pressured to hurry) and not protocol. 4) Finally, the
conclusion that a bullet fired from a rifle would only leave a shallow
wound in soft tissue - and fall out - seems quite unlikely on a common
sense level. I think Humes even realized that, which explains why it was
Common sense? Are you nuts?
Let's look into the sworn testimony of Jerrol Custer, X-ray
"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine. and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I???d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back-And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That???s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That???s about,
I???d say an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."
Custer ARRB testimony, page 53
Sonometer = Centimeter
Why do you keep saying Sonometer = Centimeter. They aren't even related.
Anyone who used one term in place of the other is clueless. Custer is the
only person in the room who claimed a bullet fell out of JFK's back and
was quickly scooped up by Finck. The FBI agents didn't report that nor did
the pathologists or the other technicians. The body was on a metal table
and a bullet dropping out would have made a clank which would have been
easily audible.
First, you seem to have forgotten that the body was being worked on
BEFORE the family and the FBI agents had arrived.
I haven't forgotten anything. That didn't happen except in the
imaginations of silly conspiracy hobbyists.
Alterationists.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There were only Humes
and Boswell, the 2 X-ray Technicians, and a couple from Gawler's.
Second, "clanks" to advise that a bullet needed to be grabbed before it
became evidence of another shooter would be useful. Third, the term
"sonometer" was used among medical personnel, which was one more thing you
https://allnurses.com/general-nursing-discussion/-quot-centi-quot-160116.html
https://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/pronouncing-centimeter.283637/
http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/blog/radiology-grammar-police-centimeter-or-sontimeter
A French accent pronouncing 'centimeter' will make it sound like
SON-timeter, and that's how it got started.
Who on the autopsy team had a French accent? Can you cite a competent
medical examiner who substitutes sonometer for centimeter?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
so perplexing (to all three pathologists) during the actual autopsy.
Of course, this is when the CTs go crazy and scream "He didn't track the
wound!" or "He could only insert his pinkie a short distance into the
wound!"
No competent doctor just inserts his pinky.
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
True, but Humes was not a very experienced pathologist.
He was a very experienced pathologist. Unfortunately he was not
experienced in gun shot autopsies nor were Boswell or any of the
technicians. Finck was the one member of the team who had such experience.
There were comments from the medical panels that looked over the work,
that Humes had made a number of mistakes.
Yes he did but the panels still agreed with the basic finding that JFK was
hit by two bullets, both fired from above and behind him.
Wow, that's pretty exact, eh?
COuld be anywhere.
mainframetech
2018-07-18 00:21:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
This is mostly for David Von Pein, but I'll assume others might want to
chime in. I read a lot of David's stuff and I ran across this about Dr.
James Humes burning his notes.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-78.html#Dr-Humes
"The reason Humes burned a first draft of the autopsy report isn't quite
as clear, because that document wasn't stained with JFK's blood. But Humes
stated that he burned that draft because it contained some errors of some
kind. Therefore, Humes rewrote the draft and burned the inaccurate copy."
- David Von Pein
Yes, it is not quite so clear why he burned the 1st draft after already
burning his notes for the very clear (and articulated) reason of having
blood stains on it.
So you mean YOU can't figure it out. Some of us have.
Please don't be honest and say the word coverup.
Think of it as a minor correction. Like maybe he spotted a TYPO as you
often do. So he forgot to capitalize President or something.
Maybe he forgot the medical term for back.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I've often thought that Humes may have written the 1st draft BEFORE having
the telephone conversation with Dr. Perry (Parkland) and discovered (for
Well, he said he did. Don't you beliieve him?
Maybe the FBI told him that there is no such thing as an Ice Bullet.
Post by d***@gmail.com
the first time) that there was a bullet wound in the throat. The
Yes, even a klutz like YOU can SEE the throat wound. But then again you're
not a doctor. The original theory when they found out about it was that
the bullet hit the back of the head and exited the throat. Now aren't you
glad I'm here to show you things you never knew about before?
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Globe11-23-63.jpg
This came out shortly after midnight.
Thanks for the 11/23/63 Boston Globe article, Tony.
It's interesting, indeed, to see that despite Dr. Perry's initial
guesswork about the throat wound being one of ENTRY, the media was (on
Sat., Nov. 23!) also theorizing about the throat wound being an EXIT wound
as well....
"The rather meager medical details attributed to Dr. Malcolm Perry, the
attending surgeon, described the bullet as entering just below the Adam's
Apple and leaving by the back of the head. Since that statement Friday
afternoon, it is believed from determining the site of the firing that the
bullet entered the back of the head first and came out just under the
Adam's Apple." -- Boston Globe; 11/23/63
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-h5LGtiXhTGA/W0Uk7VDW26I/AAAAAAABPQ4/_eyn0AQOhAQLte-lmerJMZUfpCVyIPMPQCLcBGAs/s1600/The-Boston-Globe-11-23-63.jpg
The throat wound was NOT an EXIT. It was an entry as suggested by
Perry and Carrico, who said it might be either entry or exit. But the
final bit of information was seen during the autopsy, and later spoken
A few days ago you chastised me for playing fingerprint technician and
here you are playing medical examiner. You reject what every competent
medical examiner has concluded and instead substitute your analysis which
is based on sketchy information and a very limited number of photos and
x-rays.
WRONG again! You'll never learn! I'm not playing medical examiner
by copying out O'Connor's statement. He was there and he saw certain
things, that he said were also seen by the pathologists too.
The pathologists said they saw something different than what O'Connor
described but naturally you choose to believe O'Connor and claim the
pathologists lied.
Of course! While YOU on the other hand are told a ridiculous story
about a 'single bullet' THEORY and believe that! Against all common sense
and logic, you believe the more ridiculous THEORY! While I've shown not a
THEORY, but a flat statement of an eyewitness! Plus it makes much more
sense that if there was a conspiracy, that the officers at the autopsy
would be the ones that would be contacted to lie to uphold the THEORY for
the plotters.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And what he
saw was clearly a different thing than what was reported in the phony AR.
So why do you assume O'Connor is right and the AR is wrong?
See explanation above.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Normally, his comments would probably never have been seen, what with the
order of silence placed on the whole autopsy. But because the public was
unhappy with the phony stories coming out of the government, there had to
be investigations, which freed the men to speak finally.
When he had a chance to tell his story under oath to the HSCA interviewer,
he never mentioned any of this. It was only when he began talking to
authors and wasn't under oath that he came up with these embellishments.
Ah! You'll remember that for some strange reason the HSCA said that
right at the moment in his story where he saw the PROOF of the phoniness
of the autopsy, he was said to have been ordered out of the room! FOR NO
EXPLAINED REASON! They couldn't have O'Connor telling the truth about the
back wound bullet not leaving the body of JFK, it would ruin the whole
phony story that had been put together. Later, when he was free to give
his experiences of the autopsy, we got the real story from him. Even the
HSCA was a cover up!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
Connors account of what the autopsy show is in direct conflict with the
findings by three far more qualified pathologists. So why would you give
more credibility to him than you do to them?
You have got to be kidding! O'Connors did not make a pathologists
"finding", he described something he saw,
The pathologists described what they saw. I ask you again. Why do you put
more faith in what O'Connor said he saw than what the pathologists said
they saw.
See above. Much less chance he was compromised by the powers that be.
Humes was also shown to have lied on more than one occasion.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and he said who also saw it with
him at the same time. He didn't make "findings", he told what he saw.
Anyone with normal abilities could understand him.
Anyone with normal abilities could understand what the pathologists said
they saw but for some reason that went over your head.
WRONG! According to you the pathologists gave their views through
Humes' Autopsy Report (AR), which left out important bits of information
and gave false information. And since it came from an officer, who would
be the first to be contacted to give a false story, O'Connor (an enlisted
man) was much more believable. The SBT was NOT sensible, the simple
knowledge of the public knew that was crap and said so, causing yet
another investigation.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
In the overview, which you seem not to care for, it shows conspiracy,
and knowing that, changes the way everything has to be looked at.
It changes nothing. Silly conspiracy hobbyist figuring has been around
for over 50 years.
Well, you would be the one to say it...50 years believing
foolishness, it leaves you with only 2 things to do. First, admit your
mistake or second, pretend the story you believed wrongly was true to
cover up your embarrasment.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That
includes the autopsy and the ridiculous AR which leaves out critical
information so as to fool the medical examiners.
Oh, so now the medical examiners were fooled. Is there no end to your
silliness?
I haven't hidden that info, why do you pretend that you have only now
heard it?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
So the proof was in the body, which showed that no bullet left the body
of JFK through the throat wound, therefore the SBT is dead, and there was
a conspiracy.
Poor information leads to poor conclusions.
Poor opinions vs. good reporting.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
conclusion that he reached during the autopsy was that the bullet didn't
transit and must have fallen out. It didn't seem to make a lot of sense
Someone told them it probably came out during heart massage.
Post by d***@gmail.com
but there was really no choice based on 1) there was no exit wound and 2)
x-rays indicated there was no embedded bullet.
With that type of ammo there will almost NEVER be en embedded bullet
except for at the end of 44 inches of Pondersosa Pine.
The LNs can sure go to extremes to avoid the simple facts. Consider
that the pathologists at Bethesda had orders to make it look like the
cause of death as from a bullet from above and behind.
There were no such orders. You simply assume that because the findings of
the pathologists conflict with what you would rather believe so you are
forced to invent an excuse for that inconvenient fact so you fabricate
this story about orders for which there is no evidence.
WRONG as usual! Since the real results seen in the body by the autopsy
team members
You keep saying that as if all the autopsy team members said they saw what
you are claiming. In reality, it was only the two least qualified people
on the team who said they saw that. The pathologists all said they saw
something different.
The level of qualification is not at issue, since I'm taking what the
Technologists SAW and not what their knowledge said was there. And try to
remember that NONE of the medical examiners ever had a look inside the
body as it lay on the table. And photos of the autopsy were missing as
per the photographer, so they were unable to make a decent finding except
the one that was planned for them to find.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
were avoided and a phony AR was created instead, it is
OBVIOUS that orders had to come down to Humes as to what he had to do.
He was not the type to take initiative himself for such a move.
So now you are psycho-analyzing Humes.
No, I've gone through much testimony of his reports, and they say that
of him. They were the people that knew him and worked with him daily.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
As well they would
be ordered to remove ALL bullets from the body, so that no other weapon
than the MC rifle would be proven to have also helped in the killing.
Another fabrication.
Post by mainframetech
Tracheotomies are usually small, neat slits enough to get a tube into to
allow breathing. Yet the autopsy photos show a large messy gash at the
throat of JFK.
I suppose you think a wound would remain a narrow slit despite lots of
fluids draining from the body in the hours from when the incision was made
until the photo was taken.
So you believe that fluids draining will make a little slit become a
big messy gash? Hmm.
Of course it will. As fluids drain out, there will be contraction of
tissue. I've already told you about a simple experiment you can perform.
Cut a neat slice into the skin of an apple. Leave the apple out where it
will begin to dehydrate. You will find that the neat little slice will
begin to open up.
I have big news for you. Making a "slit" in skin will over time cause
the skin to close up over the slit, and even heal! But you'll say
anything to try to cover up the WCR errors. It is possible that over long
periods of time, weeks or more, that a wound will fester and then become
something larger, but we're talking here in the JFK case of a matter of
hours between Parkland ER at 1:00pm and the autopsy at 8:00pm that
evening.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
It is preposterous to think they would try to
dig out a bullet that entered the throat from the front since it would
penetrate so deeply. In fact even a medium powered bullet would have
exited the back of the neck.
So you feel that the spine isn't strong enough to stop a bullet when
hit by one. I see.
JFK's spine was not hit by a bullet. If he had been it would have
paralyzed him.
Ah, is it Doctor bd now? medical guru!
Post by bigdog
In addition, you have proposed a bullet entering the center
of JFK's throat at a 15 degree angle. That isn't going to hit his spine. I
know geometry isn't your strong suit but I would think even you could
figure that out.
You might consider how small an angle 15 degrees is when hitting the
throat and beyond. The spinal bones are wider than that angle. Either
way, the gash at the throat didn't get wider and messier by itself.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
From your proposed location on the SoGK and
the 15 degree angle of attack, it would exit from the back right of the
neck if JFK were facing straight ahead. In the last view we had of him
before the bullet struck he was turned slightly to his right which would
make for an even sharper angle of entry and an exit out the right side of
his neck. Really basic geometry.
Basic yes. Fitting the situation, not for sure. I seem to remember he was facing more to the left where Jackie was. You might want to correct your guessing.
By that you mean the geometry doesn't fit your beliefs so we must suspend
geometric analysis.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I suggest to you that came from Humes and Boswell probing
around in the neck to find the bullet which probably hit the spine and
stopped there, so they could remove it.
Had that happened, JFK would have been paralyzed and unable to lift his
arms. This is what happened to MLK and that bullet went through his
jawbone, not the soft tissue of his throat.
Don't be ridiculous! There is no similarity with the 2 cases. and a
throat is soft tissue except where the spine is.
Yes it is and a bullet from the SoGK hitting JFK in the center of his
throat would not hit his spine. It would exit to the right of his
spine.
WRONG! You'll say anything to try and cover up the errors in the WCR.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Martin_Luther_King_Jr.
"King had gone out onto the balcony and was standing near his room when he
was struck at 6:01 p.m. by a single .30-06 bullet fired from a Remington
Model 760 rifle.[13] The bullet entered through King's right cheek,
breaking his jaw and several vertebrae as it traveled down his spinal
cord, severing his jugular vein and major arteries in the process, before
lodging in his shoulder. The force of the shot ripped King's necktie off.
King fell violently backward onto the balcony, unconscious."
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that conclusion was reflected in his first draft and then,
after the Perry conversation, it all became much clearer and made a lot
It was like a light blub went off in his head and he figured it out
without having to go back and dissecting and examining the wounds. And the
cover-up keeps telling us that we can only figure it out if we ourseles
examine the body. OK< let's examine the body.
Post by d***@gmail.com
more sense. He changed his conclusion. (NOTE: The changed conclusion was
something FBI agents Sibert & O'Neill were unaware of and explains why
their report mentions the conclusion they overheard while at the autopsy.)
Yes, I seriously doubt and no one has been able to ptove that it was the
2 FBI agents who INVENTED the Ice Bullet Theory (IBT).
OK, I'll prove it for you. In the ARRB testimony of James Sibert, FBI
"Can you tell me, was the phone call made
to Mr. Killion before or after the body was
unloaded from the casket?
A: Oh, that was after the body was removed it
was on the autopsy table, and the autopsy was in
progress. Because the reason I made that call was
that the pathologists said, ‘There’s no exit to
this back wound,” and probed it with rubber glove
and a chrome probe.
Q: okay.
A: So, that’s when I called and thought maybe
there was some type of bullet that would
disintegate. There just was no bullet that could
be located."
A judgement made in ignorance of the fact that the exit wound had been
obliterated by the tracheostomy incision. Once it was discovered that a
tracheostomy incision had been made over a bullet hole, the mystery was
cleared up. They had their exit wound and dismissed the more bizarre ideas
that had been floated.
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that Humes may have been somewhat embarrassed about his 1st
conclusion. That may explain why he did elaborate as to what those
Ya think?
He was embarrassed by his incompetence.
Post by d***@gmail.com
"errors" might have been. Those errors might have been: 1) Generally,
before beginning an autopsy, the pathologist converses with any doctors
who previously treated the victim for the wounds being analyzed. 2) The
Only in a real, legal autopsy. Not in a cover-up. When you know the victim
was killed by the Mayor's brother, you don't ask the attending physician
if any facts point to it being an inside job. That's not polite.
Post by d***@gmail.com
clothing of a shooting victim is often relevant. Humes never examined
Kennedy's shirt/tie. I'm not sure whether he even had access to them so it
So what? Leave that to the FBI.
Post by d***@gmail.com
may not have been his fault. But he could have, at least, inquired about
it. 3) He didn't track the wound. That seemed to be more in the interest
He was ORDERED not to examine the back wound.
You still don't dare to say the word cover-up.
Maybe you could be like Hosty and claim it was a "Benign" cover-up.
See if you can gather up your courage to do that.
Post by d***@gmail.com
of expediency (being pressured to hurry) and not protocol. 4) Finally, the
conclusion that a bullet fired from a rifle would only leave a shallow
wound in soft tissue - and fall out - seems quite unlikely on a common
sense level. I think Humes even realized that, which explains why it was
Common sense? Are you nuts?
Let's look into the sworn testimony of Jerrol Custer, X-ray
"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine. and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I’d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back-And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That’s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That’s about,
I’d say an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."
Custer ARRB testimony, page 53
Sonometer = Centimeter
Why do you keep saying Sonometer = Centimeter. They aren't even related.
Anyone who used one term in place of the other is clueless. Custer is the
only person in the room who claimed a bullet fell out of JFK's back and
was quickly scooped up by Finck. The FBI agents didn't report that nor did
the pathologists or the other technicians. The body was on a metal table
and a bullet dropping out would have made a clank which would have been
easily audible.
First, you seem to have forgotten that the body was being worked on
BEFORE the family and the FBI agents had arrived.
I haven't forgotten anything. That didn't happen except in the
imaginations of silly conspiracy hobbyists.
Now you have truly amazed me! You said you "haven't forgotten
anything" and I almost fell off my chair. You've forgotten so much that
the whole case must be a hazy story by now.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There were only Humes
and Boswell, the 2 X-ray Technicians, and a couple from Gawler's.
Second, "clanks" to advise that a bullet needed to be grabbed before it
became evidence of another shooter would be useful. Third, the term
"sonometer" was used among medical personnel, which was one more thing you
https://allnurses.com/general-nursing-discussion/-quot-centi-quot-160116.html
https://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/pronouncing-centimeter.283637/
http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/blog/radiology-grammar-police-centimeter-or-sontimeter
A French accent pronouncing 'centimeter' will make it sound like
SON-timeter, and that's how it got started.
Who on the autopsy team had a French accent? Can you cite a competent
medical examiner who substitutes sonometer for centimeter?
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? I said that's how it got started. Not why it
was said at all. Someone OBVIOUSLY began using SON-timeter and it got
shortened in use to SON-imeter and then sonometer. Sheesh! Grabbing at
straws!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
so perplexing (to all three pathologists) during the actual autopsy.
Of course, this is when the CTs go crazy and scream "He didn't track the
wound!" or "He could only insert his pinkie a short distance into the
wound!"
No competent doctor just inserts his pinky.
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
True, but Humes was not a very experienced pathologist.
He was a very experienced pathologist. Unfortunately he was not
experienced in gun shot autopsies nor were Boswell or any of the
technicians. Finck was the one member of the team who had such experience.
There were comments from the medical panels that looked over the work,
that Humes had made a number of mistakes.
Yes he did but the panels still agreed with the basic finding that JFK was
hit by two bullets, both fired from above and behind him.
Of course. They were fed only the info that supported that claim.
They had no choice but to agree with the AR.

Chris
Ace Kefford
2018-07-10 22:47:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
This is mostly for David Von Pein, but I'll assume others might want to
chime in. I read a lot of David's stuff and I ran across this about Dr.
James Humes burning his notes.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-78.html#Dr-Humes
"The reason Humes burned a first draft of the autopsy report isn't quite
as clear, because that document wasn't stained with JFK's blood. But Humes
stated that he burned that draft because it contained some errors of some
kind. Therefore, Humes rewrote the draft and burned the inaccurate copy."
- David Von Pein
Yes, it is not quite so clear why he burned the 1st draft after already
burning his notes for the very clear (and articulated) reason of having
blood stains on it.
I've often thought that Humes may have written the 1st draft BEFORE having
the telephone conversation with Dr. Perry (Parkland) and discovered (for
the first time) that there was a bullet wound in the throat. The
conclusion that he reached during the autopsy was that the bullet didn't
transit and must have fallen out. It didn't seem to make a lot of sense
but there was really no choice based on 1) there was no exit wound and 2)
x-rays indicated there was no embedded bullet.
I'm thinking that conclusion was reflected in his first draft and then,
after the Perry conversation, it all became much clearer and made a lot
more sense. He changed his conclusion. (NOTE: The changed conclusion was
something FBI agents Sibert & O'Neill were unaware of and explains why
their report mentions the conclusion they overheard while at the autopsy.)
I'm thinking that Humes may have been somewhat embarrassed about his 1st
conclusion. That may explain why he did elaborate as to what those
"errors" might have been. Those errors might have been: 1) Generally,
before beginning an autopsy, the pathologist converses with any doctors
who previously treated the victim for the wounds being analyzed. 2) The
clothing of a shooting victim is often relevant. Humes never examined
Kennedy's shirt/tie. I'm not sure whether he even had access to them so it
may not have been his fault. But he could have, at least, inquired about
it. 3) He didn't track the wound. That seemed to be more in the interest
of expediency (being pressured to hurry) and not protocol. 4) Finally, the
conclusion that a bullet fired from a rifle would only leave a shallow
wound in soft tissue - and fall out - seems quite unlikely on a common
sense level. I think Humes even realized that, which explains why it was
so perplexing (to all three pathologists) during the actual autopsy.
Of course, this is when the CTs go crazy and scream "He didn't track the
wound!" or "He could only insert his pinkie a short distance into the
wound!"
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
"What is the mystery, gentlemen?" When I revise a first draft of a report
I dispose of the original draft.

I think at some time there was some confusion, perhaps introduced in part
by Humes, between autopsy notes and the draft report. But I know many of
you know a lot more about that than I would and I am too busy/lazy to dig
into what I have for sources.
mainframetech
2018-07-12 02:44:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by d***@gmail.com
This is mostly for David Von Pein, but I'll assume others might want to
chime in. I read a lot of David's stuff and I ran across this about Dr.
James Humes burning his notes.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-78.html#Dr-Humes
"The reason Humes burned a first draft of the autopsy report isn't quite
as clear, because that document wasn't stained with JFK's blood. But Humes
stated that he burned that draft because it contained some errors of some
kind. Therefore, Humes rewrote the draft and burned the inaccurate copy."
- David Von Pein
Yes, it is not quite so clear why he burned the 1st draft after already
burning his notes for the very clear (and articulated) reason of having
blood stains on it.
I've often thought that Humes may have written the 1st draft BEFORE having
the telephone conversation with Dr. Perry (Parkland) and discovered (for
the first time) that there was a bullet wound in the throat. The
conclusion that he reached during the autopsy was that the bullet didn't
transit and must have fallen out. It didn't seem to make a lot of sense
but there was really no choice based on 1) there was no exit wound and 2)
x-rays indicated there was no embedded bullet.
I'm thinking that conclusion was reflected in his first draft and then,
after the Perry conversation, it all became much clearer and made a lot
more sense. He changed his conclusion. (NOTE: The changed conclusion was
something FBI agents Sibert & O'Neill were unaware of and explains why
their report mentions the conclusion they overheard while at the autopsy.)
I'm thinking that Humes may have been somewhat embarrassed about his 1st
conclusion. That may explain why he did elaborate as to what those
"errors" might have been. Those errors might have been: 1) Generally,
before beginning an autopsy, the pathologist converses with any doctors
who previously treated the victim for the wounds being analyzed. 2) The
clothing of a shooting victim is often relevant. Humes never examined
Kennedy's shirt/tie. I'm not sure whether he even had access to them so it
may not have been his fault. But he could have, at least, inquired about
it. 3) He didn't track the wound. That seemed to be more in the interest
of expediency (being pressured to hurry) and not protocol. 4) Finally, the
conclusion that a bullet fired from a rifle would only leave a shallow
wound in soft tissue - and fall out - seems quite unlikely on a common
sense level. I think Humes even realized that, which explains why it was
so perplexing (to all three pathologists) during the actual autopsy.
Of course, this is when the CTs go crazy and scream "He didn't track the
wound!" or "He could only insert his pinkie a short distance into the
wound!"
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
"What is the mystery, gentlemen?" When I revise a first draft of a report
I dispose of the original draft.
I think at some time there was some confusion, perhaps introduced in part
by Humes, between autopsy notes and the draft report. But I know many of
you know a lot more about that than I would and I am too busy/lazy to dig
into what I have for sources.
I believe the rule for these procedures is to save ALL notes and
drawings, and Humes had to verify his burning of notes for it to be
accepted without punishment to him. Another scenario might be that he put
down the truth that he saw during the autopsy, and realized he had said
more than he was ordered to, and he had to destroy that writing which
would give away that the autopsy report (AR) was false.

Chris
mainframetech
2018-07-12 02:46:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
This is mostly for David Von Pein, but I'll assume others might want to
chime in. I read a lot of David's stuff and I ran across this about Dr.
James Humes burning his notes.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-78.html#Dr-Humes
"The reason Humes burned a first draft of the autopsy report isn't quite
as clear, because that document wasn't stained with JFK's blood. But Humes
stated that he burned that draft because it contained some errors of some
kind. Therefore, Humes rewrote the draft and burned the inaccurate copy."
- David Von Pein
Yes, it is not quite so clear why he burned the 1st draft after already
burning his notes for the very clear (and articulated) reason of having
blood stains on it.
I've often thought that Humes may have written the 1st draft BEFORE having
the telephone conversation with Dr. Perry (Parkland) and discovered (for
the first time) that there was a bullet wound in the throat. The
conclusion that he reached during the autopsy was that the bullet didn't
transit and must have fallen out. It didn't seem to make a lot of sense
but there was really no choice based on 1) there was no exit wound and 2)
x-rays indicated there was no embedded bullet.
I'm thinking that conclusion was reflected in his first draft and then,
after the Perry conversation, it all became much clearer and made a lot
more sense. He changed his conclusion. (NOTE: The changed conclusion was
something FBI agents Sibert & O'Neill were unaware of and explains why
their report mentions the conclusion they overheard while at the autopsy.)
I'm thinking that Humes may have been somewhat embarrassed about his 1st
conclusion. That may explain why he did elaborate as to what those
"errors" might have been. Those errors might have been: 1) Generally,
before beginning an autopsy, the pathologist converses with any doctors
who previously treated the victim for the wounds being analyzed. 2) The
clothing of a shooting victim is often relevant. Humes never examined
Kennedy's shirt/tie. I'm not sure whether he even had access to them so it
may not have been his fault. But he could have, at least, inquired about
it. 3) He didn't track the wound. That seemed to be more in the interest
of expediency (being pressured to hurry) and not protocol. 4) Finally, the
conclusion that a bullet fired from a rifle would only leave a shallow
wound in soft tissue - and fall out - seems quite unlikely on a common
sense level. I think Humes even realized that, which explains why it was
so perplexing (to all three pathologists) during the actual autopsy.
Of course, this is when the CTs go crazy and scream "He didn't track the
wound!" or "He could only insert his pinkie a short distance into the
wound!"
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Nope, won't do. You're going to get a different response than that.
While it's true that they didn't dissect the wound path for the back wound
bullet, there were eye witnesses to the autopsy that differ from the
standard story you've been subjected to.

First, comments from Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist who assisted at
the autopsy:

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

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

So now we know that the bullet never left the body of JFK through the
throat wound as some WC lawyer tried to convince everyone it did.



Next, we come to Jerrol Custer, Navy X-ray Technician in sworn
testimony:

"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I’d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That’s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That’s about,
I’d say, an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."

From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf

Page 53

Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many
types of bullet.


So we have 2 separate eyewitness testimonials saying that the bullet
never left the body through the throat wound, and another saying it fell
out during X-rays and was confiscated by a pathologist.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-13 00:49:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by d***@gmail.com
This is mostly for David Von Pein, but I'll assume others might want to
chime in. I read a lot of David's stuff and I ran across this about Dr.
James Humes burning his notes.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-78.html#Dr-Humes
"The reason Humes burned a first draft of the autopsy report isn't quite
as clear, because that document wasn't stained with JFK's blood. But Humes
stated that he burned that draft because it contained some errors of some
kind. Therefore, Humes rewrote the draft and burned the inaccurate copy."
- David Von Pein
Yes, it is not quite so clear why he burned the 1st draft after already
burning his notes for the very clear (and articulated) reason of having
blood stains on it.
I've often thought that Humes may have written the 1st draft BEFORE having
the telephone conversation with Dr. Perry (Parkland) and discovered (for
the first time) that there was a bullet wound in the throat. The
conclusion that he reached during the autopsy was that the bullet didn't
transit and must have fallen out. It didn't seem to make a lot of sense
but there was really no choice based on 1) there was no exit wound and 2)
x-rays indicated there was no embedded bullet.
I'm thinking that conclusion was reflected in his first draft and then,
after the Perry conversation, it all became much clearer and made a lot
more sense. He changed his conclusion. (NOTE: The changed conclusion was
something FBI agents Sibert & O'Neill were unaware of and explains why
their report mentions the conclusion they overheard while at the autopsy.)
I'm thinking that Humes may have been somewhat embarrassed about his 1st
conclusion. That may explain why he did elaborate as to what those
"errors" might have been. Those errors might have been: 1) Generally,
before beginning an autopsy, the pathologist converses with any doctors
who previously treated the victim for the wounds being analyzed. 2) The
clothing of a shooting victim is often relevant. Humes never examined
Kennedy's shirt/tie. I'm not sure whether he even had access to them so it
may not have been his fault. But he could have, at least, inquired about
it. 3) He didn't track the wound. That seemed to be more in the interest
of expediency (being pressured to hurry) and not protocol. 4) Finally, the
conclusion that a bullet fired from a rifle would only leave a shallow
wound in soft tissue - and fall out - seems quite unlikely on a common
sense level. I think Humes even realized that, which explains why it was
so perplexing (to all three pathologists) during the actual autopsy.
Of course, this is when the CTs go crazy and scream "He didn't track the
wound!" or "He could only insert his pinkie a short distance into the
wound!"
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Nope, won't do. You're going to get a different response than that.
While it's true that they didn't dissect the wound path for the back wound
bullet, there were eye witnesses to the autopsy that differ from the
standard story you've been subjected to.
First, comments from Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist who assisted at
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So now we know that the bullet never left the body of JFK through the
throat wound as some WC lawyer tried to convince everyone it did.
Next, we come to Jerrol Custer, Navy X-ray Technician in sworn
"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I’d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That’s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That’s about,
I’d say, an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf
Page 53
Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many
types of bullet.
Sonometer doesn't equal centimeter and anyone who thinks so doesn't know
the meaning of the word.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/sonometer
Post by mainframetech
So we have 2 separate eyewitness testimonials saying that the bullet
never left the body through the throat wound, and another saying it fell
out during X-rays and was confiscated by a pathologist.
We have two people who many years later told uncorroborated stories that
really gullible people have chosen to believe.
mainframetech
2018-07-13 22:27:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by d***@gmail.com
This is mostly for David Von Pein, but I'll assume others might want to
chime in. I read a lot of David's stuff and I ran across this about Dr.
James Humes burning his notes.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-78.html#Dr-Humes
"The reason Humes burned a first draft of the autopsy report isn't quite
as clear, because that document wasn't stained with JFK's blood. But Humes
stated that he burned that draft because it contained some errors of some
kind. Therefore, Humes rewrote the draft and burned the inaccurate copy."
- David Von Pein
Yes, it is not quite so clear why he burned the 1st draft after already
burning his notes for the very clear (and articulated) reason of having
blood stains on it.
I've often thought that Humes may have written the 1st draft BEFORE having
the telephone conversation with Dr. Perry (Parkland) and discovered (for
the first time) that there was a bullet wound in the throat. The
conclusion that he reached during the autopsy was that the bullet didn't
transit and must have fallen out. It didn't seem to make a lot of sense
but there was really no choice based on 1) there was no exit wound and 2)
x-rays indicated there was no embedded bullet.
I'm thinking that conclusion was reflected in his first draft and then,
after the Perry conversation, it all became much clearer and made a lot
more sense. He changed his conclusion. (NOTE: The changed conclusion was
something FBI agents Sibert & O'Neill were unaware of and explains why
their report mentions the conclusion they overheard while at the autopsy.)
I'm thinking that Humes may have been somewhat embarrassed about his 1st
conclusion. That may explain why he did elaborate as to what those
"errors" might have been. Those errors might have been: 1) Generally,
before beginning an autopsy, the pathologist converses with any doctors
who previously treated the victim for the wounds being analyzed. 2) The
clothing of a shooting victim is often relevant. Humes never examined
Kennedy's shirt/tie. I'm not sure whether he even had access to them so it
may not have been his fault. But he could have, at least, inquired about
it. 3) He didn't track the wound. That seemed to be more in the interest
of expediency (being pressured to hurry) and not protocol. 4) Finally, the
conclusion that a bullet fired from a rifle would only leave a shallow
wound in soft tissue - and fall out - seems quite unlikely on a common
sense level. I think Humes even realized that, which explains why it was
so perplexing (to all three pathologists) during the actual autopsy.
Of course, this is when the CTs go crazy and scream "He didn't track the
wound!" or "He could only insert his pinkie a short distance into the
wound!"
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Nope, won't do. You're going to get a different response than that.
While it's true that they didn't dissect the wound path for the back wound
bullet, there were eye witnesses to the autopsy that differ from the
standard story you've been subjected to.
First, comments from Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist who assisted at
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So now we know that the bullet never left the body of JFK through the
throat wound as some WC lawyer tried to convince everyone it did.
Next, we come to Jerrol Custer, Navy X-ray Technician in sworn
"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I’d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That’s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That’s about,
I’d say, an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf
Page 53
Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many
types of bullet.
Sonometer doesn't equal centimeter and anyone who thinks so doesn't know
the meaning of the word.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/sonometer
How dumb can people get? We had that discussion long ago, and here
you are walking into it all over again. Sonometer is a term used in the
medical field somewhat in the past. A French accent would say centimeter
as son-timeter and that's how it got started.

https://allnurses.com/general-nursing-discussion/-quot-centi-quot-160116.html

https://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/pronouncing-centimeter.283637/

http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/blog/radiology-grammar-police-centimeter-or-sontimeter
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
So we have 2 separate eyewitness testimonials saying that the bullet
never left the body through the throat wound, and another saying it fell
out during X-rays and was confiscated by a pathologist.
We have two people who many years later told uncorroborated stories that
really gullible people have chosen to believe.
Hmm. Sounds like more OPINION again. Where's the beef? I've shown
the person's experience and statement of the autopsy, which displayed the
truth. Now are the LNs going to dispute it, or are they going to just try
and ridicule it because they have nothing to offer as evidence? The
information given was corroborated by another Technologist who was on the
autopsy team too.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-14 20:42:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Next, we come to Jerrol Custer, Navy X-ray Technician in sworn
"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I’d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That’s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That’s about,
I’d say, an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf
Page 53
Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many
types of bullet.
Sonometer doesn't equal centimeter and anyone who thinks so doesn't know
the meaning of the word.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/sonometer
How dumb can people get?
You show us on a regular basis.
Post by mainframetech
We had that discussion long ago, and here
you are walking into it all over again. Sonometer is a term used in the
medical field somewhat in the past. A French accent would say centimeter
as son-timeter and that's how it got started.
I don't care what accent you use, a sonometer is not a centimeter. People
who substitute one word for the other reveal their ignorance.
Post by mainframetech
https://allnurses.com/general-nursing-discussion/-quot-centi-quot-160116.html
Did you bother to read the comments you have linked to. The posters were
mocking this misuse of the word just as I have.
Post by mainframetech
https://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/pronouncing-centimeter.283637/
http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/blog/radiology-grammar-police-centimeter-or-sontimeter
Even mispronouncing centimeter as sontometer doesn't get you to sonometer.
That requires a whole different level of ignorance. It is conflating a
linear measurement with a diagnostic instrument.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
So we have 2 separate eyewitness testimonials saying that the bullet
never left the body through the throat wound, and another saying it fell
out during X-rays and was confiscated by a pathologist.
We have two people who many years later told uncorroborated stories that
really gullible people have chosen to believe.
Hmm. Sounds like more OPINION again. Where's the beef? I've shown
the person's experience and statement of the autopsy, which displayed the
truth.
The people you cited had little to no experience with gun shot wound
autopsies and they were the least qualified people on the staff to render
such judgements. Naturally you gravitated to them.
Post by mainframetech
Now are the LNs going to dispute it, or are they going to just try
and ridicule it because they have nothing to offer as evidence?
The evidence came from the pathologists. They were the only ones on the
team qualified to render such judgements. Opinions of unqualified people
such as the techies do not constitute evidence. Since you've never
understood what proof and evidence really mean, you don't know that.
Post by mainframetech
The
information given was corroborated by another Technologist who was on the
autopsy team too.
The information was refuted by the only qualified members of the team.
It's really no more complicated than this. Three experienced pathologists
said the bullet exited the throat and two techies in their early 20s with
no exp= erience in gunshot autopsies said it didn't. Naturally you decide
the latter's opinion should carry more weight. That alone should be enough
to shoot down your ridiculous argument but when we add in the even more
ridiculous claim that a bullet striking nothing but soft tissue only
penetrated about an inch, your position becomes completely ludicrous. But
ludicrous theories have been the staple of conspiracy theories for over
five decades so why should we expect that to change now.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-15 23:34:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Next, we come to Jerrol Custer, Navy X-ray Technician in sworn
"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I’d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That’s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That’s about,
I’d say, an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf
Page 53
Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many
types of bullet.
Sonometer doesn't equal centimeter and anyone who thinks so doesn't know
the meaning of the word.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/sonometer
How dumb can people get?
You show us on a regular basis.
Post by mainframetech
We had that discussion long ago, and here
you are walking into it all over again. Sonometer is a term used in the
medical field somewhat in the past. A French accent would say centimeter
as son-timeter and that's how it got started.
I don't care what accent you use, a sonometer is not a centimeter. People
who substitute one word for the other reveal their ignorance.
So now you're reduced to making fun of people's accents?
Did Trump tell you to do that?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
https://allnurses.com/general-nursing-discussion/-quot-centi-quot-160116.html
Did you bother to read the comments you have linked to. The posters were
mocking this misuse of the word just as I have.
Post by mainframetech
https://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/pronouncing-centimeter.283637/
http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/blog/radiology-grammar-police-centimeter-or-sontimeter
Even mispronouncing centimeter as sontometer doesn't get you to sonometer.
(phonetic)
Post by bigdog
That requires a whole different level of ignorance. It is conflating a
linear measurement with a diagnostic instrument.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
So we have 2 separate eyewitness testimonials saying that the bullet
never left the body through the throat wound, and another saying it fell
out during X-rays and was confiscated by a pathologist.
We have two people who many years later told uncorroborated stories that
really gullible people have chosen to believe.
Hmm. Sounds like more OPINION again. Where's the beef? I've shown
the person's experience and statement of the autopsy, which displayed the
truth.
The people you cited had little to no experience with gun shot wound
autopsies and they were the least qualified people on the staff to render
such judgements. Naturally you gravitated to them.
Post by mainframetech
Now are the LNs going to dispute it, or are they going to just try
and ridicule it because they have nothing to offer as evidence?
The evidence came from the pathologists. They were the only ones on the
team qualified to render such judgements. Opinions of unqualified people
such as the techies do not constitute evidence. Since you've never
understood what proof and evidence really mean, you don't know that.
Post by mainframetech
The
information given was corroborated by another Technologist who was on the
autopsy team too.
The information was refuted by the only qualified members of the team.
It's really no more complicated than this. Three experienced pathologists
said the bullet exited the throat and two techies in their early 20s with
no exp=rience in gunshot autopsies said it didn't. Naturally you decide
the latter's opinion should carry more weight. That alone should be enough
to shoot down your ridiculous argument but when we add in the even more
ridiculous claim that a bullet striking nothing but soft tissue only
penetrated about an inch, your position becomes completely ludicrous. But
ludicrous theories have been the staple of conspiracy theories for over
five decades so why should we expect that to change now.
claviger
2018-07-15 21:43:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
How dumb can people get? We had that discussion long ago, and here
you are walking into it all over again. Sonometer is a term used in the
medical field somewhat in the past. A French accent would say centimeter
as son-timeter and that's how it got started.
https://allnurses.com/general-nursing-discussion/-quot-centi-quot-160116.html
https://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/pronouncing-centimeter.283637/
http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/blog/radiology-grammar-police-centimeter-or-sontimeter
Sonometer - Physics - Kenyon College
http://physics.kenyon.edu/EarlyApparatus/Acoustics/Sonometer/Sonometer.html
A Sonometer is a device for demonstrating the relationship between the
frequency of the sound produced by a plucked string, and the tension,
length and mass per unit length of the string. These relationships are
usually called Mersenne's laws after Marin Mersenne (1588-1648),
who investigated and codified them.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-16 11:58:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
How dumb can people get? We had that discussion long ago, and here
you are walking into it all over again. Sonometer is a term used in the
medical field somewhat in the past. A French accent would say centimeter
as son-timeter and that's how it got started.
https://allnurses.com/general-nursing-discussion/-quot-centi-quot-160116.html
https://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/pronouncing-centimeter.283637/
http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/blog/radiology-grammar-police-centimeter-or-sontimeter
Sonometer - Physics - Kenyon College
http://physics.kenyon.edu/EarlyApparatus/Acoustics/Sonometer/Sonometer.html
A Sonometer is a device for demonstrating the relationship between the
frequency of the sound produced by a plucked string, and the tension,
length and mass per unit length of the string. These relationships are
usually called Mersenne's laws after Marin Mersenne (1588-1648),
who investigated and codified them.
Not the same word, not the same meaning. You can find a word listed with
several meanings. But you will cherrypick the meaning YOU want to attack
someone.

Did you know that the word Goober can have several different meanings
depending on the context? Of course not, you flunked English.
claviger
2018-07-17 21:15:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
How dumb can people get? We had that discussion long ago, and here
you are walking into it all over again. Sonometer is a term used in the
medical field somewhat in the past. A French accent would say centimeter
as son-timeter and that's how it got started.
https://allnurses.com/general-nursing-discussion/-quot-centi-quot-160116.html
https://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/pronouncing-centimeter.283637/
http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/blog/radiology-grammar-police-centimeter-or-sontimeter
Sonometer - Physics - Kenyon College
http://physics.kenyon.edu/EarlyApparatus/Acoustics/Sonometer/Sonometer.html
A Sonometer is a device for demonstrating the relationship between the
frequency of the sound produced by a plucked string, and the tension,
length and mass per unit length of the string. These relationships are
usually called Mersenne's laws after Marin Mersenne (1588-1648),
who investigated and codified them.
Not the same word, not the same meaning. You can find a word listed with
several meanings. But you will cherrypick the meaning YOU want to attack
someone.
So why are US nurses pronouncing an English word with a French accent?
Especially in the medical field where precision is so important?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Did you know that the word Goober can have several different meanings
depending on the context? Of course not, you flunked English.
Goober basically means peanut. Variations can mean rural, uneducated,
sometimes used affectionately, sometimes derisively as a peanut brain.
mainframetech
2018-07-17 00:48:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
How dumb can people get? We had that discussion long ago, and here
you are walking into it all over again. Sonometer is a term used in the
medical field somewhat in the past. A French accent would say centimeter
as son-timeter and that's how it got started.
https://allnurses.com/general-nursing-discussion/-quot-centi-quot-160116.html
https://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/pronouncing-centimeter.283637/
http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/blog/radiology-grammar-police-centimeter-or-sontimeter
Sonometer - Physics - Kenyon College
http://physics.kenyon.edu/EarlyApparatus/Acoustics/Sonometer/Sonometer.html
A Sonometer is a device for demonstrating the relationship between the
frequency of the sound produced by a plucked string, and the tension,
length and mass per unit length of the string. These relationships are
usually called Mersenne's laws after Marin Mersenne (1588-1648),
who investigated and codified them.
Of course, I have to assume that most of us realize that some words in
English have more than one meaning.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-17 22:03:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
How dumb can people get? We had that discussion long ago, and here
you are walking into it all over again. Sonometer is a term used in the
medical field somewhat in the past. A French accent would say centimeter
as son-timeter and that's how it got started.
https://allnurses.com/general-nursing-discussion/-quot-centi-quot-160116.html
https://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/pronouncing-centimeter.283637/
http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/blog/radiology-grammar-police-centimeter-or-sontimeter
Sonometer - Physics - Kenyon College
http://physics.kenyon.edu/EarlyApparatus/Acoustics/Sonometer/Sonometer.html
A Sonometer is a device for demonstrating the relationship between the
frequency of the sound produced by a plucked string, and the tension,
length and mass per unit length of the string. These relationships are
usually called Mersenne's laws after Marin Mersenne (1588-1648),
who investigated and codified them.
Of course, I have to assume that most of us realize that some words in
English have more than one meaning.
Neither centimeter or sonometer are among those words with multiple
meanings. Each have one definition. From an online dictionary

cen·ti·me·ter
[ˈsen(t)əˌmēdər]

NOUN
a metric unit of length, equal to one hundredth of a meter.

sonometer (səˈnɒmɪtə)

an instrument employed in acoustic analysis or investigation, consisting
usually of one string stretched over a resonator of wood

Any other use of either of these words shows the ignorance of the person
using them.
claviger
2018-07-18 00:14:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
How dumb can people get? We had that discussion long ago, and here
you are walking into it all over again. Sonometer is a term used in the
medical field somewhat in the past. A French accent would say centimeter
as son-timeter and that's how it got started.
https://allnurses.com/general-nursing-discussion/-quot-centi-quot-160116.html
https://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/pronouncing-centimeter.283637/
http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/blog/radiology-grammar-police-centimeter-or-sontimeter
Sonometer - Physics - Kenyon College
http://physics.kenyon.edu/EarlyApparatus/Acoustics/Sonometer/Sonometer.html
A Sonometer is a device for demonstrating the relationship between the
frequency of the sound produced by a plucked string, and the tension,
length and mass per unit length of the string. These relationships are
usually called Mersenne's laws after Marin Mersenne (1588-1648),
who investigated and codified them.
Of course, I have to assume that most of us realize that some words in
English have more than one meaning.
Chris
Some do, some don't. Maybe we should call it a centipeder just to be hip
and cool to get attention.

I wonder if the French have various meanings for the same word?
Sonometer sounds ignorant, like these nurses didn't know what a
centimeter is: 1/100 = one hundredth of a meter.

Sono means "sound" or "sound system" in French.

"CENTI"meter vs "SONO"meter
https://allnurses.com/general-nursing-discussion/-quot-centi-quot-160116.html
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-13 14:46:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by d***@gmail.com
This is mostly for David Von Pein, but I'll assume others might want to
chime in. I read a lot of David's stuff and I ran across this about Dr.
James Humes burning his notes.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-78.html#Dr-Humes
"The reason Humes burned a first draft of the autopsy report isn't quite
as clear, because that document wasn't stained with JFK's blood. But Humes
stated that he burned that draft because it contained some errors of some
kind. Therefore, Humes rewrote the draft and burned the inaccurate copy."
- David Von Pein
Yes, it is not quite so clear why he burned the 1st draft after already
burning his notes for the very clear (and articulated) reason of having
blood stains on it.
I've often thought that Humes may have written the 1st draft BEFORE having
the telephone conversation with Dr. Perry (Parkland) and discovered (for
the first time) that there was a bullet wound in the throat. The
conclusion that he reached during the autopsy was that the bullet didn't
transit and must have fallen out. It didn't seem to make a lot of sense
but there was really no choice based on 1) there was no exit wound and 2)
x-rays indicated there was no embedded bullet.
I'm thinking that conclusion was reflected in his first draft and then,
after the Perry conversation, it all became much clearer and made a lot
more sense. He changed his conclusion. (NOTE: The changed conclusion was
something FBI agents Sibert & O'Neill were unaware of and explains why
their report mentions the conclusion they overheard while at the autopsy.)
I'm thinking that Humes may have been somewhat embarrassed about his 1st
conclusion. That may explain why he did elaborate as to what those
"errors" might have been. Those errors might have been: 1) Generally,
before beginning an autopsy, the pathologist converses with any doctors
who previously treated the victim for the wounds being analyzed. 2) The
clothing of a shooting victim is often relevant. Humes never examined
Kennedy's shirt/tie. I'm not sure whether he even had access to them so it
may not have been his fault. But he could have, at least, inquired about
it. 3) He didn't track the wound. That seemed to be more in the interest
of expediency (being pressured to hurry) and not protocol. 4) Finally, the
conclusion that a bullet fired from a rifle would only leave a shallow
wound in soft tissue - and fall out - seems quite unlikely on a common
sense level. I think Humes even realized that, which explains why it was
so perplexing (to all three pathologists) during the actual autopsy.
Of course, this is when the CTs go crazy and scream "He didn't track the
wound!" or "He could only insert his pinkie a short distance into the
wound!"
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Nope, won't do. You're going to get a different response than that.
While it's true that they didn't dissect the wound path for the back wound
bullet, there were eye witnesses to the autopsy that differ from the
standard story you've been subjected to.
First, comments from Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist who assisted at
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So now we know that the bullet never left the body of JFK through the
throat wound as some WC lawyer tried to convince everyone it did.
Next, we come to Jerrol Custer, Navy X-ray Technician in sworn
"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I’d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That’s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That’s about,
I’d say, an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf
Page 53
Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many
types of bullet.
So we have 2 separate eyewitness testimonials saying that the bullet
never left the body through the throat wound, and another saying it fell
out during X-rays and was confiscated by a pathologist.
False, he did not say BULLET. It could have been a fragment.
You have a nasty habit of rewriing testimony to fit your theories.
Post by mainframetech
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-18 04:49:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
This is mostly for David Von Pein, but I'll assume others might want to
chime in. I read a lot of David's stuff and I ran across this about Dr.
James Humes burning his notes.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-78.html#Dr-Humes
"The reason Humes burned a first draft of the autopsy report isn't quite
as clear, because that document wasn't stained with JFK's blood. But Humes
stated that he burned that draft because it contained some errors of some
kind. Therefore, Humes rewrote the draft and burned the inaccurate copy."
- David Von Pein
You gotta love the way DVP so cleverly covers up obvious conspiracy like
maybe it was just a mistake.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Yes, it is not quite so clear why he burned the 1st draft after already
burning his notes for the very clear (and articulated) reason of having
blood stains on it.
It is quite clear if you read what he said in testimony. He lied. He
covered up the reason for burning the first report because it said
conspiracy and he was told to burn it, just as Hosty was ordered to
destroy the Oswald note. It is not true that he accidentally used it as
toilet paper and ACCIDENTALLY flushed it down the toilet.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I've often thought that Humes may have written the 1st draft BEFORE having
the telephone conversation with Dr. Perry (Parkland) and discovered (for
He admitted that he wrote the autopsy report at home late in the night and
after a couple of hours sleep decided to call Parkland to see if they
could help explain the wounds as THEY saw them. His hands were not blood
stained. He washed his hands and threw away his cloves before going home.
Post by d***@gmail.com
the first time) that there was a bullet wound in the throat. The
conclusion that he reached during the autopsy was that the bullet didn't
transit and must have fallen out. It didn't seem to make a lot of sense
It made a lot of sense to him and that's all that mattered at the time.
Post by d***@gmail.com
but there was really no choice based on 1) there was no exit wound and 2)
x-rays indicated there was no embedded bullet.
We shouldn't expect to see a bullet in the body.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that conclusion was reflected in his first draft and then,
after the Perry conversation, it all became much clearer and made a lot
more sense. He changed his conclusion. (NOTE: The changed conclusion was
something FBI agents Sibert & O'Neill were unaware of and explains why
their report mentions the conclusion they overheard while at the autopsy.)
That was their only job. To report what went on in the autopsy room.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that Humes may have been somewhat embarrassed about his 1st
conclusion. That may explain why he did elaborate as to what those
Why should he be embarrassed? It made sense to him at the time.
Post by d***@gmail.com
"errors" might have been. Those errors might have been: 1) Generally,
before beginning an autopsy, the pathologist converses with any doctors
who previously treated the victim for the wounds being analyzed. 2) The
You are talking about a normal legal autopsy conducted by a real
coroner. That does not apply to a cover-up by government hacks.
Post by d***@gmail.com
clothing of a shooting victim is often relevant. Humes never examined
Blame the Secret Service. They took possession of the clothing. JFK
arrived at Bethesda naked.
The Secret Service didn't know from autopsies. Something like this had
never happened to them before.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Kennedy's shirt/tie. I'm not sure whether he even had access to them so it
may not have been his fault. But he could have, at least, inquired about
Not sure? As in unable to read the damn documents or the government
withheld the documents from you? Maybe you needed to register as a
researcher. Forgot your driver's license? Do you have the new one now?
Post by d***@gmail.com
it. 3) He didn't track the wound. That seemed to be more in the interest
He was not allowed to. An Army General who can never be named told them
to NOT track the wound.
Post by d***@gmail.com
of expediency (being pressured to hurry) and not protocol. 4) Finally, the
Yeah, time was of the essence because the missiles might start falling
at any minute so they should have skipped the autopsy entirely.
Post by d***@gmail.com
conclusion that a bullet fired from a rifle would only leave a shallow
wound in soft tissue - and fall out - seems quite unlikely on a common
How did they know it was a rifle then? Someone was feeding them the
information that someone wanted them to have?
Did they even know about short rounds and duds? No, they were not
ballistics experts. But Humes DID know about ICE BULLETS. How did he
know about ICE BULLETS? I thought that was supposed to be Top Secret SCI!
Post by d***@gmail.com
sense level. I think Humes even realized that, which explains why it was
so perplexing (to all three pathologists) during the actual autopsy.
Of course, this is when the CTs go crazy and scream "He didn't track the
wound!" or "He could only insert his pinkie a short distance into the
wound!"
That does not qualify as tracking a wound. It qualifies as INCOMPETENCE.

Patient says, "Doctor, my arm hurts when I raise my hand over my head."
Doctor says, "Well then don't raise your hand above your head!" @1937
Henny Youngman.
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Loading...