Discussion:
Humes burning his notes
(too old to reply)
d***@gmail.com
2018-07-09 20:00:50 UTC
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
d***@gmail.com
2018-07-18 22:16:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
But Finck was ordered NOT to examine the wound.
Dr. Pierre Finck's testimony in the Clay Shaw trial:

Q: Now, can you give me the name then of the General that was in charge of
the autopsy, as you testified about?

A: Well, there was no General in charge of the autopsy. There were several
people, as I have stated before, I heard Dr. Humes state who was in charge
here, and he stated that the General answered "I am," it may have been
pertaining to operations other than the autopsy, it does not mean the Army
General was in charge of the autopsy, but when Dr. Humes asked who was in
charge here, it may have been who was in charge of the operations, but not
of the autopsy, and by "operations," I mean the over-all supervision.

* * *

He clarified an earlier statement he made about how some General claimed
to "in charge" - the comment that almost all CTs cite but never cite the
above clarification. Finck makes it clear that no General/Admiral was
ordering them HOW to conduct the autopsy.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-19 21:35:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
But Finck was ordered NOT to examine the wound.
Q: Now, can you give me the name then of the General that was in charge of
the autopsy, as you testified about?
A: Well, there was no General in charge of the autopsy. There were several
people, as I have stated before, I heard Dr. Humes state who was in charge
here, and he stated that the General answered "I am," it may have been
pertaining to operations other than the autopsy, it does not mean the Army
General was in charge of the autopsy, but when Dr. Humes asked who was in
charge here, it may have been who was in charge of the operations, but not
of the autopsy, and by "operations," I mean the over-all supervision.
* * *
He clarified an earlier statement he made about how some General claimed
to "in charge" - the comment that almost all CTs cite but never cite the
above clarification. Finck makes it clear that no General/Admiral was
ordering them HOW to conduct the autopsy.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
I have posted the same thing thousands of times, but consider this
question in your mind:

Did Finck understand thew difference between an ARMY General and a Navy
General? So when he said General he means Army General.

Who there was an Army General and had the authority to order him?
He was ordered by The Commander of the base, Stoval to OBEY the orders
from the unnameble Army General as though they had come from Stoval himself.


The silliest explanation I have ever heard from the cover is when some
kook said he mean General as in Attorney General, which would be Robert
Kennedy, not knowing that the Kennedys were up in a room above the
autopsy and never went down into the autopsy suite.



By Chelsea Brasted

***@nola.com,

NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune

Two men waited in a parked sedan outside Steinberg's Sports Center in
Baton Rouge when Richard Lipsey got to work Jan 18, 1978. It had been a
little more than 15 years since John F. Kennedy was assassinated in
Dallas -- 15 years since Lipsey signed National Security Act documents
swearing he wouldn't talk about what he'd witnessed that day.

The two men got out of the car wearing smart business suits and
approached Lipsey.

"Are you Richard Lipsey? Were you a lieutenant in the U.S. Army in 1963?
And were you in Washington? And did you watch the autopsy of John F.
Kennedy?"

Yes, yes, yes and yes.

The men, who came on behalf of the House Select Committee on
Assassinations, followed Lipsey inside, where for the first time he
recounted exactly how he'd heard the news that the president was shot,
how he'd spent the afternoon preparing for the arrival of the body, how
he'd helped the medical technicians at Bethesda Navy Hospital wipe it
down and how, exactly, he'd stood alongside Jackie Kennedy and a select
group of weary, grieving White House aides during a private 4:30 a.m.
mass the next morning.

It was the first time Lipsey had really thought about what happened that
day. He knew he couldn't talk about it, so not thinking about it seemed
an easy option.

"They really caught me cold," Lipsey said. "It was very difficult at the
time to go through that again with them and try to identify exactly what
they wanted, and they were kind of leading me on."

The recounting opened a kind of Pandora's box inside Lipsey. It was the
spark to ignite his own desire to figure out exactly what happened that
day. Was it Lee Harvey Oswald who shot Kennedy? And if it was, did he
act alone?

It was just after his usual lunch break on Nov. 22, 1963. Lipsey sat in
a car parked outside Maj. Gen. Philip C. Wehle's house when the news
came over the radio that Kennedy had been shot. Lipsey ran to the door,
where Wehle met him on the way out. They'd heard the same news, and they
both had snapped into action.

It was time to go to work.

As aide to Wehle, the commander of the military district of Washington,
D.C., Lipsey had a front row seat to a tumultuous time, including Martin
Luther King Jr.'s historic march just months earlier. Lipsey knew that
at any minute Wehle could be called upon to escort a high ranking
dignitary to meet the president, or he might have to help plan the
funeral for former aging presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower or Harry
Truman. But this was different.

Lipsey had served as sometimes-social aide to Kennedy, had shaken his
hand numerous times after briefing Kennedy on various visitors, and the
pair had developed a friendship.

"He was a hell of a guy. A very smart man," Lipsey said.

When Kennedy's body arrived around 6:30 p.m., he accompanied Wehle and
Jackie Kennedy to Bethesda Naval Hospital. Wehle and a stoic Jackie
Kennedy went upstairs to begin the gargantuan task of planning a
presidential funeral, and Lipsey was given the task of guarding the door.

"Nobody touches that body except the doctors, and no unauthorized person
enters that room," Lipsey remembered Wehle saying.

Lipsey helped the technicians when he was asked, helping to transfer
Kennedy's body to the autopsy table, wiping it off and watching the
calm, slow process of photographing the entry and exit points of the
bullets. Sometime that night, Lipsey chowed down on a burger and Coke
while watching the autopsy from the student's gallery above. Later,
Lipsey would help to dress Kennedy in the suit his wife had chosen
before closing the casket.

The body was moved to the White House in the dead of night, and Lipsey
sat in on the private mass a priest gave before dawn. Jackie Kennedy
asked everyone out of the room, and though he never knew what happened
then, Lipsey is fairly certain he was one of the last people to ever see
Kennedy's body before his burial.

The following days were a torrent of planning, securing and organizing
the funeral procession. He stood next to Wehle and the Kennedy family as
they made their slow walk to the Capitol from the White House. He later
led Princess Grace Kelly to the grave-site, not understanding why Jackie
Kennedy wouldn't see her.

There are many things Lipsey doesn't understand that day, and he doesn't
suppose he'll ever figure them out. What he does know -- and he's
certain of this -- is that it was Lee Harvey Oswald who pulled the trigger.

After delving into the mist in 1978, Lipsey slowly learned more and more
about what happened that day. He remembered hearing the Boston accent of
an FBI agent who'd been outside the autopsy, found him and read through
the agent's report.

"The more I started thinking about it, the more I was able to put the
picture together myself," Lipsey said.

He read the conspiracy theories, he looked at the photographs, he
watched the Oliver Stone movie and he read the books. It all comes down
to one thing: He's certain Lee Harvey Oswald did it.

"This guy was a nut, and he was going to show everybody," Lipsey said.
"Everybody thought he was nuts, but he was going to show everybody that
he can pull off the big one. ... Everybody has a theory about who put
him up to it. Maybe they did? But there's just no evidence that ties him
to any particular group."

Lipsey estimates he has told his story about a dozen times, but only to
select groups, ones he feels a certain connection to. He won't go on
national TV, though he has been asked often, and he won't speak to just
anyone. He prefers to avoid the spotlight, but he acknowledges the
importance of passing his story down to new generations.

In recalling the story, Lipsey doesn't feel any acute sadness or
catharsis. Instead, he recognizes how lucky he was to have known Wehle,
the major general who pulled him out of the group at what was then-Camp
Polk, brought him to Washington, D.C., and mentored him.

"It makes me step back and think about how much I appreciated Gen.
Wehle," Lipsey said.

As for the day Lipsey stood witness to one of the saddest and most
portentous moments in American history, he looks back on it with equanimity.

"It doesn't overwhelm me," Lipsey said.

* * * * * *

Chelsea Brasted is an entertainment reporter based in Baton Rouge. Email
her at ***@nola.com or call 225.460.1350. You can also keep up with
all her local updates on Twitter (@cabrasted) and through NOLA.com Baton
Rouge on Facebook.



Doesn't this kinda, sorta narrow it down to General Wehle who WAS in
control of the loading dock?
Why he would supervise the autopsy is strange, but you could make up a
conspiracy theory that RFK asked him to watch out for the interests of
the Kennedy family. And why just for the autopsy procedures?
Because during an autopsy they have to remove and examine the organs.
And the Kennedy family did not want the adrenal glands examined, because
that would prove that JFK had been suffering from Addison's Disease
which they had continually been denying, ever since the convention
running against LBJ, whom RFK hated, and rightly so.
This is what we call a CYA cover-up. It doesn't change any facts about
who shot whom, but it protects the privacy of the family.
As an example, sometimes the coroner is asked by the family to not
mention that the loved one had died of AIDS.
I am not going to cite any examples to prove that, but if you are
resourceful you can find them.
Hope this explains it for you. And don't ask me how I know that RFK
asked them to cover up the Addison's Disease. Can you figure out where I
am posting from?
John McAdams
2018-07-19 21:39:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 19 Jul 2018 17:35:55 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
But Finck was ordered NOT to examine the wound.
Q: Now, can you give me the name then of the General that was in charge of
the autopsy, as you testified about?
A: Well, there was no General in charge of the autopsy. There were several
people, as I have stated before, I heard Dr. Humes state who was in charge
here, and he stated that the General answered "I am," it may have been
pertaining to operations other than the autopsy, it does not mean the Army
General was in charge of the autopsy, but when Dr. Humes asked who was in
charge here, it may have been who was in charge of the operations, but not
of the autopsy, and by "operations," I mean the over-all supervision.
* * *
He clarified an earlier statement he made about how some General claimed
to "in charge" - the comment that almost all CTs cite but never cite the
above clarification. Finck makes it clear that no General/Admiral was
ordering them HOW to conduct the autopsy.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
I have posted the same thing thousands of times, but consider this
Did Finck understand thew difference between an ARMY General and a Navy
General? So when he said General he means Army General.
Who there was an Army General and had the authority to order him?
He was ordered by The Commander of the base, Stoval to OBEY the orders
from the unnameble Army General as though they had come from Stoval himself.
Interesting that buffs obsess on the New Orleans trial testimony, when
there is copious evidence from both Manchester and the HSCA
interviews.

It was Adm. George Burkley who was (correctly) assumed to represent
"the family" and who was hurrying things up.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
d***@gmail.com
2018-07-20 16:33:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Interesting that buffs obsess on the New Orleans trial testimony, when
there is copious evidence from both Manchester and the HSCA
interviews.
It was Adm. George Burkley who was (correctly) assumed to represent
"the family" and who was hurrying things up.
.John
Exactly!

There are actually three points of authority conflict that occurred at
Bethesda.

First, there was the encounter outside the morgue when the body was
arriving. Humes noticed a gentleman with a camera and, knowing he
shouldn't be there, asked "Who's in charge?" - meaning, "Who is in charge
of this operation such that a rogue photographer is permitted to be
roaming around?" It had nothing to do with the autopsy. Humes received an
answer from General Philip C. Wehle, "I am!". General Wehle never even
entered the morgue and was not on the FBI list of those who were inside
morgue during the autopsy.

Then there was some confusion at the early stages as to the extent of the
autopsy. In all likelihood, Humes felt pressure from the very beginning.
"Just how long is this going to take? Hurry up! We know how the president
died. There's no need to hack him to pieces. The family is waiting." (my
words, of course)

Humes had to consult with his boss, Admiral Calvin B. Galloway, regarding
what KIND of autopsy was to be done - a partial or full? Admiral Galloway
authorized a FULL autopsy.

Yet, despite the authorization to conduct a full autopsy, the pressure
persisted throughout the procedure with frequent phone calls come from the
17th floor. "How much longer?" Much of this pressure was probably coming
from both Admiral George Burkley and General Godfrey McHugh. My guess is
that Humes finally gave in to some of this pressure and didn't perform
some time consuming procedures. Tracking the back/neck wound would have
been time consuming and, at the time, seemed somewhat pointless since they
already knew where the entry wound was ... they also "knew" that there was
no exit wound ... they also knew no bullet was embedded ... and they had
received word that a bullet was recovered at Parkland. So, what else could
Humes conclude at this point OTHER than the bullet did not transit and,
somehow, fell out through its point of entry? They hypothesized that this
might have occurred during attempts at cardiac resuscitation (which was
never performed).

It was puzzling because, on its face, that seems like a very unlikely
occurrence which is why Humes quickly changed his mind when a far more
plausible explanation presented itself once he discovered about the throat
wound the following day during his phone conversation with Dr. Perry - a
conversation that SHOULD have occurred BEFORE the autopsy even began - a
mistake to which Humes readily admitted.

John, you mention the buffs' obsession with the New Orleans testimony of
Dr. Finck, but they cherry-pick that testimony and almost always leave out
his clarification on the who-is-in-charge thing, stating that it had
nothing to do with the conduct of autopsy.

Tony suggests that Finck might have not been able to distinguish between
an Army General and Navy "General". Pierre Finck was a Colonel and
certainly had enough experience in the military to know the difference.
Finck, himself, was only one rank below Brigadier General at the time. The
Navy doesn't have Generals - they have Admirals. The Marine Corps, which
operates under the Department of the Navy, has Generals, however. Either
way, what difference does any of that make? The point is that nobody - no
General or Admiral - was ordering the conduct of the autopsy - certainly
not in the manner as most conspiracy theorists see it. Yet, there can be
little doubt that Humes didn't feel pressure to finish sooner rather than
later.

It wasn't a perfect autopsy but it was good enough. Even Dr. Earl Rose,
the Parkland doctor who would have done the autopsy had Kennedy's body
remained in Dallas and who served on the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel,
agreed with the fundamental conclusions of the Bethesda autopsy.

In fact, in 1978, Vincent Bugliosi asked Dr. Earl Rose (now retired),
"Were you satisfied from your review of the autopsy photos and x-rays that
the autopsy surgeons reached the same conclusion you would have reached if
you had conducted the autopsy back in 1963 in Dallas?"

Dr. Earl Rose: "Yes, there’s no question their conclusions were
correct. Two shots entered the president from behind, the entrance wound
to the back exiting in the throat at the site of the tracheotomy and the
entrance wound to the back of the head exiting in the right frontal
temporal area."

Rose had some minor criticisms, but he still agreed with the fundamental
conclusions. He said some of the wound locations are poorly described.
Rose also said that the three pathologists were not inept as if often
mentioned and that they were quite competent.

Rose went on to say that "You can’t blame the autopsy surgeons for
the fact that the autopsy should have been more complete ... considering
they were operating under the most trying, tremendously difficult
circumstances."

SIDENOTE: Back in 1978, while attending the United States Naval Academy in
Annapolis, MD, I actually got the opportunity to speak briefly (over the
phone) with Dr. James Humes (retired). I was doing a report for a
Political Science course I was taking called "Investigative Research",
although my major was Aerospace Engineering. [I admit, I took the class
mostly because there was no classroom attendance required and that my
grade was 100% based on the quality of the end-of-semester presentation.
It was part research, part public speaking and part developing a formal
presentation. The Kennedy assassination was very topical at the time
because of the HSCA which seemed to be in the Washington Post and
Baltimore Sun on a daily basis. I got to attend a couple public sessions
of the HSCA, an opportunity mostly afforded due to the proximity of
Annapolis to Washington, D.C. and my being an active duty military member.
I was there the day Louie Steven Witt was questioned, the beginning of the
first semester of my senior year, I believe. It was comical when the
umbrella was opened.] I think Humes only talked to me (i.e tolerated me)
was because I was a Navy midshipman. He struck me as a somewhat bitter man
due to the many criticisms of him over the years - everything from being a
total incompetent to being PART of the plot to cover-up the truth of the
assassination. He struck me as a scarred individual. When I read his ARRB
testimony, I can "hear" a lot of that same bitterness, anger and sarcasm.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
John McAdams
2018-07-20 16:50:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Interesting that buffs obsess on the New Orleans trial testimony, when
there is copious evidence from both Manchester and the HSCA
interviews.
It was Adm. George Burkley who was (correctly) assumed to represent
"the family" and who was hurrying things up.
.John
Exactly!
There are actually three points of authority conflict that occurred at
Bethesda.
First, there was the encounter outside the morgue when the body was
arriving. Humes noticed a gentleman with a camera and, knowing he
shouldn't be there, asked "Who's in charge?" - meaning, "Who is in charge
of this operation such that a rogue photographer is permitted to be
roaming around?" It had nothing to do with the autopsy. Humes received an
answer from General Philip C. Wehle, "I am!". General Wehle never even
entered the morgue and was not on the FBI list of those who were inside
morgue during the autopsy.
Then there was some confusion at the early stages as to the extent of the
autopsy. In all likelihood, Humes felt pressure from the very beginning.
"Just how long is this going to take? Hurry up! We know how the president
died. There's no need to hack him to pieces. The family is waiting." (my
words, of course)
When buffs quote the Finck New Orleans testimony, they never mention
Finck saying "the family."

Finck's impression was that "the family" was authorizing or not
authorizing stuff.

Not exactly true, but it was true that Burkley was accepted as
representing "the family," and conveying pressure to finish up.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Humes had to consult with his boss, Admiral Calvin B. Galloway, regarding
what KIND of autopsy was to be done - a partial or full? Admiral Galloway
authorized a FULL autopsy.
Yet, despite the authorization to conduct a full autopsy, the pressure
persisted throughout the procedure with frequent phone calls come from the
17th floor. "How much longer?" Much of this pressure was probably coming
from both Admiral George Burkley and General Godfrey McHugh. My guess is
that Humes finally gave in to some of this pressure and didn't perform
some time consuming procedures. Tracking the back/neck wound would have
been time consuming and, at the time, seemed somewhat pointless since they
already knew where the entry wound was ... they also "knew" that there was
no exit wound ... they also knew no bullet was embedded ... and they had
received word that a bullet was recovered at Parkland. So, what else could
Humes conclude at this point OTHER than the bullet did not transit and,
somehow, fell out through its point of entry? They hypothesized that this
might have occurred during attempts at cardiac resuscitation (which was
never performed).
It was puzzling because, on its face, that seems like a very unlikely
occurrence which is why Humes quickly changed his mind when a far more
plausible explanation presented itself once he discovered about the throat
wound the following day during his phone conversation with Dr. Perry - a
conversation that SHOULD have occurred BEFORE the autopsy even began - a
mistake to which Humes readily admitted.
Although in the chaotic atmosphere that doubtless prevailed at
Bethesda (and all of official Washington, actually) that's
understandable.
Post by d***@gmail.com
John, you mention the buffs' obsession with the New Orleans testimony of
Dr. Finck, but they cherry-pick that testimony and almost always leave out
his clarification on the who-is-in-charge thing, stating that it had
nothing to do with the conduct of autopsy.
Tony suggests that Finck might have not been able to distinguish between
an Army General and Navy "General". Pierre Finck was a Colonel and
certainly had enough experience in the military to know the difference.
Finck, himself, was only one rank below Brigadier General at the time. The
Navy doesn't have Generals - they have Admirals. The Marine Corps, which
operates under the Department of the Navy, has Generals, however. Either
way, what difference does any of that make? The point is that nobody - no
General or Admiral - was ordering the conduct of the autopsy - certainly
not in the manner as most conspiracy theorists see it. Yet, there can be
little doubt that Humes didn't feel pressure to finish sooner rather than
later.
It wasn't a perfect autopsy but it was good enough. Even Dr. Earl Rose,
the Parkland doctor who would have done the autopsy had Kennedy's body
remained in Dallas and who served on the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel,
agreed with the fundamental conclusions of the Bethesda autopsy.
In fact, in 1978, Vincent Bugliosi asked Dr. Earl Rose (now retired),
"Were you satisfied from your review of the autopsy photos and x-rays that
the autopsy surgeons reached the same conclusion you would have reached if
you had conducted the autopsy back in 1963 in Dallas?"
But there was that embarrassing four inch error about the entry defect
in the skull.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Dr. Earl Rose: "Yes, there’s no question their conclusions were
correct. Two shots entered the president from behind, the entrance wound
to the back exiting in the throat at the site of the tracheotomy and the
entrance wound to the back of the head exiting in the right frontal
temporal area."
Rose had some minor criticisms, but he still agreed with the fundamental
conclusions. He said some of the wound locations are poorly described.
Rose also said that the three pathologists were not inept as if often
mentioned and that they were quite competent.
Rose went on to say that "You can’t blame the autopsy surgeons for
the fact that the autopsy should have been more complete ... considering
they were operating under the most trying, tremendously difficult
circumstances."
SIDENOTE: Back in 1978, while attending the United States Naval Academy in
Annapolis, MD, I actually got the opportunity to speak briefly (over the
phone) with Dr. James Humes (retired). I was doing a report for a
Political Science course I was taking called "Investigative Research",
although my major was Aerospace Engineering. [I admit, I took the class
mostly because there was no classroom attendance required and that my
grade was 100% based on the quality of the end-of-semester presentation.
It was part research, part public speaking and part developing a formal
presentation. The Kennedy assassination was very topical at the time
because of the HSCA which seemed to be in the Washington Post and
Baltimore Sun on a daily basis. I got to attend a couple public sessions
of the HSCA, an opportunity mostly afforded due to the proximity of
Annapolis to Washington, D.C. and my being an active duty military member.
I was there the day Louie Steven Witt was questioned, the beginning of the
first semester of my senior year, I believe. It was comical when the
umbrella was opened.] I think Humes only talked to me (i.e tolerated me)
was because I was a Navy midshipman. He struck me as a somewhat bitter man
due to the many criticisms of him over the years - everything from being a
total incompetent to being PART of the plot to cover-up the truth of the
assassination. He struck me as a scarred individual. When I read his ARRB
testimony, I can "hear" a lot of that same bitterness, anger and sarcasm.
The HSCA really gave him a going over, getting him to admit an error
about the entry defect in the skull.

Then, in the 90s, he went back to claiming his mistaken EOP area
entry.

I do sympathize with him.

It's like: the President is stricken with an aneurysm, and rushed to
a military hospital, and some General orders an orthopedic surgeon
(rather than a vascular surgeon) to save him. The president dies and
the poor surgeon is blamed for the rest of his life.

That would be Humes.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-22 01:43:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Interesting that buffs obsess on the New Orleans trial testimony, when
there is copious evidence from both Manchester and the HSCA
interviews.
It was Adm. George Burkley who was (correctly) assumed to represent
"the family" and who was hurrying things up.
.John
Exactly!
There are actually three points of authority conflict that occurred at
Bethesda.
First, there was the encounter outside the morgue when the body was
arriving. Humes noticed a gentleman with a camera and, knowing he
shouldn't be there, asked "Who's in charge?" - meaning, "Who is in charge
of this operation such that a rogue photographer is permitted to be
roaming around?" It had nothing to do with the autopsy. Humes received an
answer from General Philip C. Wehle, "I am!". General Wehle never even
entered the morgue and was not on the FBI list of those who were inside
morgue during the autopsy.
Then there was some confusion at the early stages as to the extent of the
autopsy. In all likelihood, Humes felt pressure from the very beginning.
"Just how long is this going to take? Hurry up! We know how the president
died. There's no need to hack him to pieces. The family is waiting." (my
words, of course)
When buffs quote the Finck New Orleans testimony, they never mention
Finck saying "the family."
Finck's impression was that "the family" was authorizing or not
authorizing stuff.
Not exactly true, but it was true that Burkley was accepted as
representing "the family," and conveying pressure to finish up.
Silly. The family was not there in the autopsy room to SEE them start to
dissect the back wound and tell them to stop immediately.

It was an Army General. Jackie was not an Army General. RFK was not an
Army General. Caroline was not an Army General. John-John was not an Army
General.
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Humes had to consult with his boss, Admiral Calvin B. Galloway, regarding
what KIND of autopsy was to be done - a partial or full? Admiral Galloway
authorized a FULL autopsy.
Yet, despite the authorization to conduct a full autopsy, the pressure
persisted throughout the procedure with frequent phone calls come from the
17th floor. "How much longer?" Much of this pressure was probably coming
from both Admiral George Burkley and General Godfrey McHugh. My guess is
that Humes finally gave in to some of this pressure and didn't perform
some time consuming procedures. Tracking the back/neck wound would have
been time consuming and, at the time, seemed somewhat pointless since they
already knew where the entry wound was ... they also "knew" that there was
no exit wound ... they also knew no bullet was embedded ... and they had
received word that a bullet was recovered at Parkland. So, what else could
Humes conclude at this point OTHER than the bullet did not transit and,
somehow, fell out through its point of entry? They hypothesized that this
might have occurred during attempts at cardiac resuscitation (which was
never performed).
It was puzzling because, on its face, that seems like a very unlikely
occurrence which is why Humes quickly changed his mind when a far more
plausible explanation presented itself once he discovered about the throat
wound the following day during his phone conversation with Dr. Perry - a
conversation that SHOULD have occurred BEFORE the autopsy even began - a
mistake to which Humes readily admitted.
Although in the chaotic atmosphere that doubtless prevailed at
Bethesda (and all of official Washington, actually) that's
understandable.
Post by d***@gmail.com
John, you mention the buffs' obsession with the New Orleans testimony of
Dr. Finck, but they cherry-pick that testimony and almost always leave out
his clarification on the who-is-in-charge thing, stating that it had
nothing to do with the conduct of autopsy.
Tony suggests that Finck might have not been able to distinguish between
an Army General and Navy "General". Pierre Finck was a Colonel and
certainly had enough experience in the military to know the difference.
Finck, himself, was only one rank below Brigadier General at the time. The
Navy doesn't have Generals - they have Admirals. The Marine Corps, which
operates under the Department of the Navy, has Generals, however. Either
way, what difference does any of that make? The point is that nobody - no
General or Admiral - was ordering the conduct of the autopsy - certainly
not in the manner as most conspiracy theorists see it. Yet, there can be
little doubt that Humes didn't feel pressure to finish sooner rather than
later.
It wasn't a perfect autopsy but it was good enough. Even Dr. Earl Rose,
the Parkland doctor who would have done the autopsy had Kennedy's body
remained in Dallas and who served on the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel,
agreed with the fundamental conclusions of the Bethesda autopsy.
In fact, in 1978, Vincent Bugliosi asked Dr. Earl Rose (now retired),
"Were you satisfied from your review of the autopsy photos and x-rays that
the autopsy surgeons reached the same conclusion you would have reached if
you had conducted the autopsy back in 1963 in Dallas?"
But there was that embarrassing four inch error about the entry defect
in the skull.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Dr. Earl Rose: "Yes, there???s no question their conclusions were
correct. Two shots entered the president from behind, the entrance wound
to the back exiting in the throat at the site of the tracheotomy and the
entrance wound to the back of the head exiting in the right frontal
temporal area."
Rose had some minor criticisms, but he still agreed with the fundamental
conclusions. He said some of the wound locations are poorly described.
Rose also said that the three pathologists were not inept as if often
mentioned and that they were quite competent.
Rose went on to say that "You can???t blame the autopsy surgeons for
the fact that the autopsy should have been more complete ... considering
they were operating under the most trying, tremendously difficult
circumstances."
SIDENOTE: Back in 1978, while attending the United States Naval Academy in
Annapolis, MD, I actually got the opportunity to speak briefly (over the
phone) with Dr. James Humes (retired). I was doing a report for a
Political Science course I was taking called "Investigative Research",
although my major was Aerospace Engineering. [I admit, I took the class
mostly because there was no classroom attendance required and that my
grade was 100% based on the quality of the end-of-semester presentation.
It was part research, part public speaking and part developing a formal
presentation. The Kennedy assassination was very topical at the time
because of the HSCA which seemed to be in the Washington Post and
Baltimore Sun on a daily basis. I got to attend a couple public sessions
of the HSCA, an opportunity mostly afforded due to the proximity of
Annapolis to Washington, D.C. and my being an active duty military member.
I was there the day Louie Steven Witt was questioned, the beginning of the
first semester of my senior year, I believe. It was comical when the
umbrella was opened.] I think Humes only talked to me (i.e tolerated me)
was because I was a Navy midshipman. He struck me as a somewhat bitter man
due to the many criticisms of him over the years - everything from being a
total incompetent to being PART of the plot to cover-up the truth of the
assassination. He struck me as a scarred individual. When I read his ARRB
testimony, I can "hear" a lot of that same bitterness, anger and sarcasm.
The HSCA really gave him a going over, getting him to admit an error
about the entry defect in the skull.
As if such a minor error would matter to WC defenders. Close enough for
government work. It doesn't matter to them WHERE the wounds were as long
as they were bullet wounds.
Post by John McAdams
Then, in the 90s, he went back to claiming his mistaken EOP area
entry.
I do sympathize with him.
It's like: the President is stricken with an aneurysm, and rushed to
a military hospital, and some General orders an orthopedic surgeon
(rather than a vascular surgeon) to save him. The president dies and
the poor surgeon is blamed for the rest of his life.
That would be Humes.
Is that called Medical Incompetence or just Close Enough For Government
Work?
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
d***@gmail.com
2018-07-23 01:36:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Not exactly true, but it was true that Burkley was accepted as
representing "the family," and conveying pressure to finish up.
Silly. The family was not there in the autopsy room to SEE them start to
dissect the back wound and tell them to stop immediately.
John knows that the family was not in the autopsy room and you KNOW that.
He specifically said that Burkley felt as if he was acting as a
representative of "the family" (that even John put in quotes) - clearly
indicating that "the family" was not actually in the room.

So often you criticize and nitpick on points that you have to know have no
substance. You have an inexplicable need to be critical and sarcastic at
all times, even when you KNOW that John McAdams knows good and well that
the family was not in the morgue.
Post by Anthony Marsh
It was an Army General. Jackie was not an Army General. RFK was not an
Army General. Caroline was not an Army General. John-John was not an Army
General.
"It was an Army General," you say. WHAT about this Army General? Tell us
about him. He was directing the autopsy? He was the guy as portrayed in
the movie JFK who was standing in the back of the morgue who, when asked,
"Who's in charge?" blurted out, "I am!".

What interpretations do YOU have regarding the common conspiracy view that
there was a "mysterious general" in the autopsy room directing certain
procedures?

Couldn't it simply be this ...

1) As supported by Dr. Finck's New Orleans testimony, some general was
directing "operations" but NOT the autopsy. Humes didn't like the chaos
swirling around the autopsy, both outside and inside, and blurted out,
"Who's in charge?"

2) Dr. Humes was feeling pressure from either (or both) General McHugh and
Admiral Burkley who, themselves, were feeling pressure from the 17th
floor.

Couldn't it be that simple - and the CTs have speculatively extrapolated
all this to create a mysterious ranking officer (supposedly an Army
general) in the morgue directing autopsy procedures - apparently with
sinister purposes to conceal the truth regarding the true nature of the
wounds - which, in itself, is kind of silly because this mysterious
general had to know that the truth was just one phone call away to
Parkland?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-25 01:21:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Not exactly true, but it was true that Burkley was accepted as
representing "the family," and conveying pressure to finish up.
Silly. The family was not there in the autopsy room to SEE them start to
dissect the back wound and tell them to stop immediately.
John knows that the family was not in the autopsy room and you KNOW that.
He specifically said that Burkley felt as if he was acting as a
representative of "the family" (that even John put in quotes) - clearly
indicating that "the family" was not actually in the room.
There is no problem with that. Exactly when was Burkley in the autopsy
room? Was that when Humees started to dissect the back wound? Was Burkley
an Arm Genedal?
Post by d***@gmail.com
So often you criticize and nitpick on points that you have to know have no
substance. You have an inexplicable need to be critical and sarcastic at
all times, even when you KNOW that John McAdams knows good and well that
the family was not in the morgue.
I know that, he knows that, we all know that. So, what's your point? Who
was the Army General who ordered them not to dissect the back wound?
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
It was an Army General. Jackie was not an Army General. RFK was not an
Army General. Caroline was not an Army General. John-John was not an Army
General.
"It was an Army General," you say. WHAT about this Army General? Tell us
about him. He was directing the autopsy? He was the guy as portrayed in
No, he only intervened when they started to examine the back wound.
Post by d***@gmail.com
the movie JFK who was standing in the back of the morgue who, when asked,
"Who's in charge?" blurted out, "I am!".
I don't care who the actor was. Is he listed in the credits? And playing
whom?
Post by d***@gmail.com
What interpretations do YOU have regarding the common conspiracy view that
there was a "mysterious general" in the autopsy room directing certain
procedures?
Then tell us who he was and why he had authority over the autopsy doctors.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Couldn't it simply be this ...
1) As supported by Dr. Finck's New Orleans testimony, some general was
directing "operations" but NOT the autopsy. Humes didn't like the chaos
No. He only spoke up to prevent them from examining the back wound.
Maybe he didn't like where it lead.
Post by d***@gmail.com
swirling around the autopsy, both outside and inside, and blurted out,
"Who's in charge?"
He said that only in reaction to being told to stop examining the back
wound. Not General Chaos.
Post by d***@gmail.com
2) Dr. Humes was feeling pressure from either (or both) General McHugh and
Admiral Burkley who, themselves, were feeling pressure from the 17th
floor.
That's OK. They had plenty of time to remove and weigh the organs.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Couldn't it be that simple - and the CTs have speculatively extrapolated
all this to create a mysterious ranking officer (supposedly an Army
general) in the morgue directing autopsy procedures - apparently with
sinister purposes to conceal the truth regarding the true nature of the
wounds - which, in itself, is kind of silly because this mysterious
general had to know that the truth was just one phone call away to
Parkland?
No, you are just covering up for the Conspiracy as usual. Not much of a
job, but it pays the bills.
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
bigdog
2018-07-21 00:13:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Interesting that buffs obsess on the New Orleans trial testimony, when
there is copious evidence from both Manchester and the HSCA
interviews.
It was Adm. George Burkley who was (correctly) assumed to represent
"the family" and who was hurrying things up.
.John
Exactly!
There are actually three points of authority conflict that occurred at
Bethesda.
First, there was the encounter outside the morgue when the body was
arriving. Humes noticed a gentleman with a camera and, knowing he
shouldn't be there, asked "Who's in charge?" - meaning, "Who is in charge
of this operation such that a rogue photographer is permitted to be
roaming around?" It had nothing to do with the autopsy. Humes received an
answer from General Philip C. Wehle, "I am!". General Wehle never even
entered the morgue and was not on the FBI list of those who were inside
morgue during the autopsy.
Then there was some confusion at the early stages as to the extent of the
autopsy. In all likelihood, Humes felt pressure from the very beginning.
"Just how long is this going to take? Hurry up! We know how the president
died. There's no need to hack him to pieces. The family is waiting." (my
words, of course)
Humes had to consult with his boss, Admiral Calvin B. Galloway, regarding
what KIND of autopsy was to be done - a partial or full? Admiral Galloway
authorized a FULL autopsy.
Yet, despite the authorization to conduct a full autopsy, the pressure
persisted throughout the procedure with frequent phone calls come from the
17th floor. "How much longer?" Much of this pressure was probably coming
from both Admiral George Burkley and General Godfrey McHugh. My guess is
that Humes finally gave in to some of this pressure and didn't perform
some time consuming procedures. Tracking the back/neck wound would have
been time consuming and, at the time, seemed somewhat pointless since they
already knew where the entry wound was ... they also "knew" that there was
no exit wound ... they also knew no bullet was embedded ... and they had
received word that a bullet was recovered at Parkland. So, what else could
Humes conclude at this point OTHER than the bullet did not transit and,
somehow, fell out through its point of entry? They hypothesized that this
might have occurred during attempts at cardiac resuscitation (which was
never performed).
It was puzzling because, on its face, that seems like a very unlikely
occurrence which is why Humes quickly changed his mind when a far more
plausible explanation presented itself once he discovered about the throat
wound the following day during his phone conversation with Dr. Perry - a
conversation that SHOULD have occurred BEFORE the autopsy even began - a
mistake to which Humes readily admitted.
John, you mention the buffs' obsession with the New Orleans testimony of
Dr. Finck, but they cherry-pick that testimony and almost always leave out
his clarification on the who-is-in-charge thing, stating that it had
nothing to do with the conduct of autopsy.
Tony suggests that Finck might have not been able to distinguish between
an Army General and Navy "General". Pierre Finck was a Colonel and
certainly had enough experience in the military to know the difference.
Finck, himself, was only one rank below Brigadier General at the time. The
Navy doesn't have Generals - they have Admirals. The Marine Corps, which
operates under the Department of the Navy, has Generals, however. Either
way, what difference does any of that make? The point is that nobody - no
General or Admiral - was ordering the conduct of the autopsy - certainly
not in the manner as most conspiracy theorists see it. Yet, there can be
little doubt that Humes didn't feel pressure to finish sooner rather than
later.
It wasn't a perfect autopsy but it was good enough. Even Dr. Earl Rose,
the Parkland doctor who would have done the autopsy had Kennedy's body
remained in Dallas and who served on the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel,
agreed with the fundamental conclusions of the Bethesda autopsy.
In fact, in 1978, Vincent Bugliosi asked Dr. Earl Rose (now retired),
"Were you satisfied from your review of the autopsy photos and x-rays that
the autopsy surgeons reached the same conclusion you would have reached if
you had conducted the autopsy back in 1963 in Dallas?"
Dr. Earl Rose: "Yes, there’s no question their conclusions were
correct. Two shots entered the president from behind, the entrance wound
to the back exiting in the throat at the site of the tracheotomy and the
entrance wound to the back of the head exiting in the right frontal
temporal area."
Rose had some minor criticisms, but he still agreed with the fundamental
conclusions. He said some of the wound locations are poorly described.
Rose also said that the three pathologists were not inept as if often
mentioned and that they were quite competent.
Rose went on to say that "You can’t blame the autopsy surgeons for
the fact that the autopsy should have been more complete ... considering
they were operating under the most trying, tremendously difficult
circumstances."
SIDENOTE: Back in 1978, while attending the United States Naval Academy in
Annapolis, MD, I actually got the opportunity to speak briefly (over the
phone) with Dr. James Humes (retired). I was doing a report for a
Political Science course I was taking called "Investigative Research",
although my major was Aerospace Engineering. [I admit, I took the class
mostly because there was no classroom attendance required and that my
grade was 100% based on the quality of the end-of-semester presentation.
It was part research, part public speaking and part developing a formal
presentation. The Kennedy assassination was very topical at the time
because of the HSCA which seemed to be in the Washington Post and
Baltimore Sun on a daily basis. I got to attend a couple public sessions
of the HSCA, an opportunity mostly afforded due to the proximity of
Annapolis to Washington, D.C. and my being an active duty military member.
I was there the day Louie Steven Witt was questioned, the beginning of the
first semester of my senior year, I believe. It was comical when the
umbrella was opened.] I think Humes only talked to me (i.e tolerated me)
was because I was a Navy midshipman. He struck me as a somewhat bitter man
due to the many criticisms of him over the years - everything from being a
total incompetent to being PART of the plot to cover-up the truth of the
assassination. He struck me as a scarred individual. When I read his ARRB
testimony, I can "hear" a lot of that same bitterness, anger and sarcasm.
This is where whoever was making the decisions dropped the ball. I don't
have a problem with the body being removed from Dallas so that AF1 could
get into the relative safety of the air because early on nobody knew if it
was part of a Soviet attempt to decapitate the government. Nobody had any
idea who was behind it. The mistake was in deciding that the autopsy
needed to be conducted by the military because JFK was the
commander-in-chief. That was wrong for several reasons. For one, the
military didn't have people on staff experienced in medico-legal autopsies
of murder victims. Legally establishing the cause of death is a
requirement in the prosecution of an accused murderer. Without doing that,
you can't establish a crime was committed. It simply wasn't good enough to
say, "we know how he died" whether those words were actually spoken or
that was the attitude of those in charge. An experienced civilian medical
examiner would have been aware of the importance of legally establishing
cause of death. He also would not have been required to follow directives
from senior officers from either the Army or the Navy. If pressured to
take short cuts, he would be more likely than a military pathologist to
tell those officers that if the autopsy were not conducted properly, it
could jeopardize the prosecution of the assassin. Had this case gone to
trial, the defense might have challenged the validity of the autopsy. I
doubt it would have been a successful ploy but there was no reason to even
given them that ammunition.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-25 01:26:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Interesting that buffs obsess on the New Orleans trial testimony, when
there is copious evidence from both Manchester and the HSCA
interviews.
It was Adm. George Burkley who was (correctly) assumed to represent
"the family" and who was hurrying things up.
.John
Exactly!
There are actually three points of authority conflict that occurred at
Bethesda.
First, there was the encounter outside the morgue when the body was
arriving. Humes noticed a gentleman with a camera and, knowing he
shouldn't be there, asked "Who's in charge?" - meaning, "Who is in charge
of this operation such that a rogue photographer is permitted to be
roaming around?" It had nothing to do with the autopsy. Humes received an
answer from General Philip C. Wehle, "I am!". General Wehle never even
entered the morgue and was not on the FBI list of those who were inside
morgue during the autopsy.
Then there was some confusion at the early stages as to the extent of the
autopsy. In all likelihood, Humes felt pressure from the very beginning.
"Just how long is this going to take? Hurry up! We know how the president
died. There's no need to hack him to pieces. The family is waiting." (my
words, of course)
Humes had to consult with his boss, Admiral Calvin B. Galloway, regarding
what KIND of autopsy was to be done - a partial or full? Admiral Galloway
authorized a FULL autopsy.
Yet, despite the authorization to conduct a full autopsy, the pressure
persisted throughout the procedure with frequent phone calls come from the
17th floor. "How much longer?" Much of this pressure was probably coming
from both Admiral George Burkley and General Godfrey McHugh. My guess is
that Humes finally gave in to some of this pressure and didn't perform
some time consuming procedures. Tracking the back/neck wound would have
been time consuming and, at the time, seemed somewhat pointless since they
already knew where the entry wound was ... they also "knew" that there was
no exit wound ... they also knew no bullet was embedded ... and they had
received word that a bullet was recovered at Parkland. So, what else could
Humes conclude at this point OTHER than the bullet did not transit and,
somehow, fell out through its point of entry? They hypothesized that this
might have occurred during attempts at cardiac resuscitation (which was
never performed).
It was puzzling because, on its face, that seems like a very unlikely
occurrence which is why Humes quickly changed his mind when a far more
plausible explanation presented itself once he discovered about the throat
wound the following day during his phone conversation with Dr. Perry - a
conversation that SHOULD have occurred BEFORE the autopsy even began - a
mistake to which Humes readily admitted.
John, you mention the buffs' obsession with the New Orleans testimony of
Dr. Finck, but they cherry-pick that testimony and almost always leave out
his clarification on the who-is-in-charge thing, stating that it had
nothing to do with the conduct of autopsy.
Tony suggests that Finck might have not been able to distinguish between
an Army General and Navy "General". Pierre Finck was a Colonel and
certainly had enough experience in the military to know the difference.
Finck, himself, was only one rank below Brigadier General at the time. The
Navy doesn't have Generals - they have Admirals. The Marine Corps, which
operates under the Department of the Navy, has Generals, however. Either
way, what difference does any of that make? The point is that nobody - no
General or Admiral - was ordering the conduct of the autopsy - certainly
not in the manner as most conspiracy theorists see it. Yet, there can be
little doubt that Humes didn't feel pressure to finish sooner rather than
later.
It wasn't a perfect autopsy but it was good enough. Even Dr. Earl Rose,
the Parkland doctor who would have done the autopsy had Kennedy's body
remained in Dallas and who served on the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel,
agreed with the fundamental conclusions of the Bethesda autopsy.
In fact, in 1978, Vincent Bugliosi asked Dr. Earl Rose (now retired),
"Were you satisfied from your review of the autopsy photos and x-rays that
the autopsy surgeons reached the same conclusion you would have reached if
you had conducted the autopsy back in 1963 in Dallas?"
Dr. Earl Rose: "Yes, there???s no question their conclusions were
correct. Two shots entered the president from behind, the entrance wound
to the back exiting in the throat at the site of the tracheotomy and the
entrance wound to the back of the head exiting in the right frontal
temporal area."
Rose had some minor criticisms, but he still agreed with the fundamental
conclusions. He said some of the wound locations are poorly described.
Rose also said that the three pathologists were not inept as if often
mentioned and that they were quite competent.
Rose went on to say that "You can???t blame the autopsy surgeons for
the fact that the autopsy should have been more complete ... considering
they were operating under the most trying, tremendously difficult
circumstances."
SIDENOTE: Back in 1978, while attending the United States Naval Academy in
Annapolis, MD, I actually got the opportunity to speak briefly (over the
phone) with Dr. James Humes (retired). I was doing a report for a
Political Science course I was taking called "Investigative Research",
although my major was Aerospace Engineering. [I admit, I took the class
mostly because there was no classroom attendance required and that my
grade was 100% based on the quality of the end-of-semester presentation.
It was part research, part public speaking and part developing a formal
presentation. The Kennedy assassination was very topical at the time
because of the HSCA which seemed to be in the Washington Post and
Baltimore Sun on a daily basis. I got to attend a couple public sessions
of the HSCA, an opportunity mostly afforded due to the proximity of
Annapolis to Washington, D.C. and my being an active duty military member.
I was there the day Louie Steven Witt was questioned, the beginning of the
first semester of my senior year, I believe. It was comical when the
umbrella was opened.] I think Humes only talked to me (i.e tolerated me)
was because I was a Navy midshipman. He struck me as a somewhat bitter man
due to the many criticisms of him over the years - everything from being a
total incompetent to being PART of the plot to cover-up the truth of the
assassination. He struck me as a scarred individual. When I read his ARRB
testimony, I can "hear" a lot of that same bitterness, anger and sarcasm.
This is where whoever was making the decisions dropped the ball. I don't
have a problem with the body being removed from Dallas so that AF1 could
get into the relative safety of the air because early on nobody knew if it
was part of a Soviet attempt to decapitate the government. Nobody had any
idea who was behind it. The mistake was in deciding that the autopsy
OK, but at least find COMPETENT forensic pathologists to do the autopsy.
Post by bigdog
needed to be conducted by the military because JFK was the
commander-in-chief. That was wrong for several reasons. For one, the
military didn't have people on staff experienced in medico-legal autopsies
of murder victims. Legally establishing the cause of death is a
requirement in the prosecution of an accused murderer. Without doing that,
you can't establish a crime was committed. It simply wasn't good enough to
say, "we know how he died" whether those words were actually spoken or
that was the attitude of those in charge. An experienced civilian medical
examiner would have been aware of the importance of legally establishing
cause of death. He also would not have been required to follow directives
from senior officers from either the Army or the Navy. If pressured to
take short cuts, he would be more likely than a military pathologist to
tell those officers that if the autopsy were not conducted properly, it
could jeopardize the prosecution of the assassin. Had this case gone to
trial, the defense might have challenged the validity of the autopsy. I
doubt it would have been a successful ploy but there was no reason to even
given them that ammunition.
Well, it's also that this was a political assassination and they needed
to find all possible clues as to who did it and why.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-22 01:42:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Interesting that buffs obsess on the New Orleans trial testimony, when
there is copious evidence from both Manchester and the HSCA
interviews.
It was Adm. George Burkley who was (correctly) assumed to represent
"the family" and who was hurrying things up.
.John
Exactly!
Silly. Maybe .JOhn can not tell the difference between a General and an
Admiral, but surely Finck could since he was in the ARMY. Of course they
might not have been in uniform, just in their bathing suits, so maybe it
is hard to tell the difference.
Post by d***@gmail.com
There are actually three points of authority conflict that occurred at
Bethesda.
First, there was the encounter outside the morgue when the body was
arriving. Humes noticed a gentleman with a camera and, knowing he
shouldn't be there, asked "Who's in charge?" - meaning, "Who is in charge
of this operation such that a rogue photographer is permitted to be
roaming around?" It had nothing to do with the autopsy. Humes received an
answer from General Philip C. Wehle, "I am!". General Wehle never even
entered the morgue and was not on the FBI list of those who were inside
morgue during the autopsy.
Then there was some confusion at the early stages as to the extent of the
autopsy. In all likelihood, Humes felt pressure from the very beginning.
"Just how long is this going to take? Hurry up! We know how the president
died. There's no need to hack him to pieces. The family is waiting." (my
words, of course)
Humes had to consult with his boss, Admiral Calvin B. Galloway, regarding
what KIND of autopsy was to be done - a partial or full? Admiral Galloway
authorized a FULL autopsy.
WHat aboout Stover?
Post by d***@gmail.com
Yet, despite the authorization to conduct a full autopsy, the pressure
persisted throughout the procedure with frequent phone calls come from the
17th floor. "How much longer?" Much of this pressure was probably coming
Yes, exactly. Phone calls. You can't convince me that they had close
circuuit TV then and Burkely saw on TV that Fincke or Humes was going to
but into the back and called them to tell them to stop.

The way Fincke phrases it the unnamable General was right there in the
autopsy room supervising EVERYTHING they did.
Post by d***@gmail.com
from both Admiral George Burkley and General Godfrey McHugh. My guess is
that Humes finally gave in to some of this pressure and didn't perform
some time consuming procedures. Tracking the back/neck wound would have
Yes, it's such a pain in the neck to remove the brain and do a Y incision
and remove all the organs and weigh them all. It might take 5 hours for
the Three Stooges who had no experience with autopsies, plus Humes was
getting drowsy and needed some sleep.
Post by d***@gmail.com
been time consuming and, at the time, seemed somewhat pointless since they
already knew where the entry wound was ... they also "knew" that there was
no exit wound ... they also knew no bullet was embedded ... and they had
Well, they didn't even find the back wound until the end of the autopsy.
But why all the careful work and measuring? Isn't it obvious that no one
could survive a bullet wound to the head like that? Just list cause of
death as shot to the head. It's not like there are any laws or rules they
have to obey.
Post by d***@gmail.com
received word that a bullet was recovered at Parkland. So, what else could
Humes conclude at this point OTHER than the bullet did not transit and,
somehow, fell out through its point of entry? They hypothesized that this
might have occurred during attempts at cardiac resuscitation (which was
never performed).
WHich bullet? The one through JFK or the one through Connally or the one
that missed or the one through the head?
Post by d***@gmail.com
It was puzzling because, on its face, that seems like a very unlikely
occurrence which is why Humes quickly changed his mind when a far more
plausible explanation presented itself once he discovered about the throat
wound the following day during his phone conversation with Dr. Perry - a
conversation that SHOULD have occurred BEFORE the autopsy even began - a
mistake to which Humes readily admitted.
Everybody makes mistakes. That's why they needed Three Stooges to do the
autopsy. One to make the mistake and the other 2 to cover it up.
Post by d***@gmail.com
John, you mention the buffs' obsession with the New Orleans testimony of
Dr. Finck, but they cherry-pick that testimony and almost always leave out
his clarification on the who-is-in-charge thing, stating that it had
nothing to do with the conduct of autopsy.
I think the reason might be because it was a real trial and people were
under oath.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Tony suggests that Finck might have not been able to distinguish between
an Army General and Navy "General". Pierre Finck was a Colonel and
I think my point was that surely he WOULD be able to tell the difference
and he knew it was an ARMY General. Do you know any Navy Generals?
Post by d***@gmail.com
certainly had enough experience in the military to know the difference.
Finck, himself, was only one rank below Brigadier General at the time. The
Navy doesn't have Generals - they have Admirals. The Marine Corps, which
operates under the Department of the Navy, has Generals, however. Either
Now, I like that. How about a Marine General, who worked for the CIA and
planned the Bay of Pigs invasion? Now you're talking!
Post by d***@gmail.com
way, what difference does any of that make? The point is that nobody - no
General or Admiral - was ordering the conduct of the autopsy - certainly
not in the manner as most conspiracy theorists see it. Yet, there can be
Kinda seems like it when he teklls them to stop what they're doing and
move on.
Post by d***@gmail.com
little doubt that Humes didn't feel pressure to finish sooner rather than
later.
This is NOT about finishing early to go home and get some sleep.
They could have done that at any other time in the autopsy.
Did they have to stay and help the morticians?
THIS is only about dissecting the back wound.
Post by d***@gmail.com
It wasn't a perfect autopsy but it was good enough. Even Dr. Earl Rose,
Good enough for government work.
Post by d***@gmail.com
the Parkland doctor who would have done the autopsy had Kennedy's body
remained in Dallas and who served on the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel,
But that would be like obeying the law.
The Secret Service does not have to obey the law.
Post by d***@gmail.com
agreed with the fundamental conclusions of the Bethesda autopsy.
In fact, in 1978, Vincent Bugliosi asked Dr. Earl Rose (now retired),
"Were you satisfied from your review of the autopsy photos and x-rays that
the autopsy surgeons reached the same conclusion you would have reached if
you had conducted the autopsy back in 1963 in Dallas?"
Dr. Earl Rose: "Yes, there???s no question their conclusions were
correct. Two shots entered the president from behind, the entrance wound
to the back exiting in the throat at the site of the tracheotomy and the
entrance wound to the back of the head exiting in the right frontal
temporal area."
Rose had some minor criticisms, but he still agreed with the fundamental
conclusions. He said some of the wound locations are poorly described.
Rose also said that the three pathologists were not inept as if often
mentioned and that they were quite competent.
Could Rose see the bullet hole in the forehead that even McAdams can see?
Post by d***@gmail.com
Rose went on to say that "You can???t blame the autopsy surgeons for
the fact that the autopsy should have been more complete ... considering
they were operating under the most trying, tremendously difficult
circumstances."
Yes, exactly. They were facing WWIII. WHy couldn't they have done the
autopsy in the completely equipped operating room in the Top Secret
bunker outside of Washington?
Post by d***@gmail.com
SIDENOTE: Back in 1978, while attending the United States Naval Academy in
Annapolis, MD, I actually got the opportunity to speak briefly (over the
phone) with Dr. James Humes (retired). I was doing a report for a
Political Science course I was taking called "Investigative Research",
although my major was Aerospace Engineering. [I admit, I took the class
mostly because there was no classroom attendance required and that my
grade was 100% based on the quality of the end-of-semester presentation.
It was part research, part public speaking and part developing a formal
presentation. The Kennedy assassination was very topical at the time
because of the HSCA which seemed to be in the Washington Post and
Baltimore Sun on a daily basis. I got to attend a couple public sessions
of the HSCA, an opportunity mostly afforded due to the proximity of
Annapolis to Washington, D.C. and my being an active duty military member.
I was there the day Louie Steven Witt was questioned, the beginning of the
first semester of my senior year, I believe. It was comical when the
umbrella was opened.] I think Humes only talked to me (i.e tolerated me)
was because I was a Navy midshipman. He struck me as a somewhat bitter man
due to the many criticisms of him over the years - everything from being a
total incompetent to being PART of the plot to cover-up the truth of the
assassination. He struck me as a scarred individual. When I read his ARRB
testimony, I can "hear" a lot of that same bitterness, anger and sarcasm.
I don't blame him. He didn't want to do the autopsy. He knew he was
unqualifid, but it was thrust upon him and he did the best he could.
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
mainframetech
2018-07-22 01:56:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Interesting that buffs obsess on the New Orleans trial testimony, when
there is copious evidence from both Manchester and the HSCA
interviews.
It was Adm. George Burkley who was (correctly) assumed to represent
"the family" and who was hurrying things up.
.John
Exactly!
There are actually three points of authority conflict that occurred at
Bethesda.
First, there was the encounter outside the morgue when the body was
arriving. Humes noticed a gentleman with a camera and, knowing he
shouldn't be there, asked "Who's in charge?" - meaning, "Who is in charge
of this operation such that a rogue photographer is permitted to be
roaming around?" It had nothing to do with the autopsy. Humes received an
answer from General Philip C. Wehle, "I am!". General Wehle never even
entered the morgue and was not on the FBI list of those who were inside
morgue during the autopsy.
Then there was some confusion at the early stages as to the extent of the
autopsy. In all likelihood, Humes felt pressure from the very beginning.
"Just how long is this going to take? Hurry up! We know how the president
died. There's no need to hack him to pieces. The family is waiting." (my
words, of course)
Humes had to consult with his boss, Admiral Calvin B. Galloway, regarding
what KIND of autopsy was to be done - a partial or full? Admiral Galloway
authorized a FULL autopsy.
Yet, despite the authorization to conduct a full autopsy, the pressure
persisted throughout the procedure with frequent phone calls come from the
17th floor. "How much longer?" Much of this pressure was probably coming
from both Admiral George Burkley and General Godfrey McHugh. My guess is
that Humes finally gave in to some of this pressure and didn't perform
some time consuming procedures. Tracking the back/neck wound would have
been time consuming and, at the time, seemed somewhat pointless since they
already knew where the entry wound was ... they also "knew" that there was
no exit wound ... they also knew no bullet was embedded ... and they had
received word that a bullet was recovered at Parkland. So, what else could
Humes conclude at this point OTHER than the bullet did not transit and,
somehow, fell out through its point of entry? They hypothesized that this
might have occurred during attempts at cardiac resuscitation (which was
never performed).
It was puzzling because, on its face, that seems like a very unlikely
occurrence which is why Humes quickly changed his mind when a far more
plausible explanation presented itself once he discovered about the throat
wound the following day during his phone conversation with Dr. Perry - a
conversation that SHOULD have occurred BEFORE the autopsy even began - a
mistake to which Humes readily admitted.
Humes lied when he said that he learned about the tracheostomy on
Saturday morning. He needed an excuse for why he had burned his notes,
which was not supposed to be done. The notes were to be saved in all
cases. Here's the proof that Humes knew DURING the autopsy or before,
that there was a tracheotomy at the throat over a bullet wound:



As well, Dr. Ebersole (radiologist) spoke about knowing DURING the
autopsy that there had been a tracheotomy in a throat wound:

"After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole,
MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, “Ebersole had told me
during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound
from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he
had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy
– that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that
intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound –
corresponding to the back entrance wound – was
solved.”[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two
hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy."

From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm

and also Audrey Bell, Nursing Supervisor:

"Given permission, she continues, “Saturday morning when I got
over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of
course he had been primary until Dr. Clark came … He sat down in a
chair. I said, ‘You look awful. Did you get any sleep last
night?’ And he said, ‘Well, not too much between the calls
from Bethesda that came in during the night.’ I said,
‘What about?’ He said, ‘Oh. Whether that was an
entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat.’ He said,
‘They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance
wound.’

From: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html
Post by d***@gmail.com
John, you mention the buffs' obsession with the New Orleans testimony of
Dr. Finck, but they cherry-pick that testimony and almost always leave out
his clarification on the who-is-in-charge thing, stating that it had
nothing to do with the conduct of autopsy.
Tony suggests that Finck might have not been able to distinguish between
an Army General and Navy "General". Pierre Finck was a Colonel and
certainly had enough experience in the military to know the difference.
Finck, himself, was only one rank below Brigadier General at the time. The
Navy doesn't have Generals - they have Admirals. The Marine Corps, which
operates under the Department of the Navy, has Generals, however. Either
way, what difference does any of that make? The point is that nobody - no
General or Admiral - was ordering the conduct of the autopsy - certainly
not in the manner as most conspiracy theorists see it. Yet, there can be
little doubt that Humes didn't feel pressure to finish sooner rather than
later.
Some of the enlisted men that were part of the autopsy team said they
heard commands from Burkley like 'you don't need to do that, move on' and
similar remarks.
Post by d***@gmail.com
It wasn't a perfect autopsy but it was good enough. Even Dr. Earl Rose,
the Parkland doctor who would have done the autopsy had Kennedy's body
remained in Dallas and who served on the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel,
agreed with the fundamental conclusions of the Bethesda autopsy.
In fact, in 1978, Vincent Bugliosi asked Dr. Earl Rose (now retired),
"Were you satisfied from your review of the autopsy photos and x-rays that
the autopsy surgeons reached the same conclusion you would have reached if
you had conducted the autopsy back in 1963 in Dallas?"
Dr. Earl Rose: "Yes, there’s no question their conclusions were
correct. Two shots entered the president from behind, the entrance wound
to the back exiting in the throat at the site of the tracheotomy and the
entrance wound to the back of the head exiting in the right frontal
temporal area."
Earl Rose was shown the same material that the medical panels were
shown, which was limited to information that would support the phony
Autopsy Report (AR). No one that reviewed the autopsy from the data could
make any other conclusion, yet those that saw the proof in the body DURING
the autopsy, when the organs were removed, knew that the back wound bullet
never left the body of JFK through the throat wound. If (for instance) he
had been shown the bullet wound in the forehead/temple area, there would
have ben a different attitude and conclusions from Rose and the panels
too.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Rose had some minor criticisms, but he still agreed with the fundamental
conclusions. He said some of the wound locations are poorly described.
Rose also said that the three pathologists were not inept as if often
mentioned and that they were quite competent.
Rose went on to say that "You can’t blame the autopsy surgeons for
the fact that the autopsy should have been more complete ... considering
they were operating under the most trying, tremendously difficult
circumstances."
SIDENOTE: Back in 1978, while attending the United States Naval Academy in
Annapolis, MD, I actually got the opportunity to speak briefly (over the
phone) with Dr. James Humes (retired). I was doing a report for a
Political Science course I was taking called "Investigative Research",
although my major was Aerospace Engineering. [I admit, I took the class
mostly because there was no classroom attendance required and that my
grade was 100% based on the quality of the end-of-semester presentation.
It was part research, part public speaking and part developing a formal
presentation. The Kennedy assassination was very topical at the time
because of the HSCA which seemed to be in the Washington Post and
Baltimore Sun on a daily basis. I got to attend a couple public sessions
of the HSCA, an opportunity mostly afforded due to the proximity of
Annapolis to Washington, D.C. and my being an active duty military member.
I was there the day Louie Steven Witt was questioned, the beginning of the
first semester of my senior year, I believe. It was comical when the
umbrella was opened.] I think Humes only talked to me (i.e tolerated me)
was because I was a Navy midshipman. He struck me as a somewhat bitter man
due to the many criticisms of him over the years - everything from being a
total incompetent to being PART of the plot to cover-up the truth of the
assassination. He struck me as a scarred individual. When I read his ARRB
testimony, I can "hear" a lot of that same bitterness, anger and sarcasm.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Humes may also have been embittered by being forced to lie about the
autopsy, which might have been a major item in his service record, but
became a burden when he had to go all over and lie to everyone about it,
and be blamed for all kinds of things he had to concoct on the spur of the
moment.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-22 21:28:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Interesting that buffs obsess on the New Orleans trial testimony, when
there is copious evidence from both Manchester and the HSCA
interviews.
It was Adm. George Burkley who was (correctly) assumed to represent
"the family" and who was hurrying things up.
.John
Exactly!
There are actually three points of authority conflict that occurred at
Bethesda.
First, there was the encounter outside the morgue when the body was
arriving. Humes noticed a gentleman with a camera and, knowing he
shouldn't be there, asked "Who's in charge?" - meaning, "Who is in charge
of this operation such that a rogue photographer is permitted to be
roaming around?" It had nothing to do with the autopsy. Humes received an
answer from General Philip C. Wehle, "I am!". General Wehle never even
entered the morgue and was not on the FBI list of those who were inside
morgue during the autopsy.
Then there was some confusion at the early stages as to the extent of the
autopsy. In all likelihood, Humes felt pressure from the very beginning.
"Just how long is this going to take? Hurry up! We know how the president
died. There's no need to hack him to pieces. The family is waiting." (my
words, of course)
Humes had to consult with his boss, Admiral Calvin B. Galloway, regarding
what KIND of autopsy was to be done - a partial or full? Admiral Galloway
authorized a FULL autopsy.
Yet, despite the authorization to conduct a full autopsy, the pressure
persisted throughout the procedure with frequent phone calls come from the
17th floor. "How much longer?" Much of this pressure was probably coming
from both Admiral George Burkley and General Godfrey McHugh. My guess is
that Humes finally gave in to some of this pressure and didn't perform
some time consuming procedures. Tracking the back/neck wound would have
been time consuming and, at the time, seemed somewhat pointless since they
already knew where the entry wound was ... they also "knew" that there was
no exit wound ... they also knew no bullet was embedded ... and they had
received word that a bullet was recovered at Parkland. So, what else could
Humes conclude at this point OTHER than the bullet did not transit and,
somehow, fell out through its point of entry? They hypothesized that this
might have occurred during attempts at cardiac resuscitation (which was
never performed).
It was puzzling because, on its face, that seems like a very unlikely
occurrence which is why Humes quickly changed his mind when a far more
plausible explanation presented itself once he discovered about the throat
wound the following day during his phone conversation with Dr. Perry - a
conversation that SHOULD have occurred BEFORE the autopsy even began - a
mistake to which Humes readily admitted.
Humes lied when he said that he learned about the tracheostomy on
Saturday morning. He needed an excuse for why he had burned his notes,
which was not supposed to be done. The notes were to be saved in all
cases. Here's the proof that Humes knew DURING the autopsy or before,
http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
As well, Dr. Ebersole (radiologist) spoke about knowing DURING the
"After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole,
MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, “Ebersole had told me
during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound
from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he
had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy
– that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that
intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound –
corresponding to the back entrance wound – was
solved.”[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two
hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm
"Given permission, she continues, “Saturday morning when I got
over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of
course he had been primary until Dr. Clark came … He sat down in a
chair. I said, ‘You look awful. Did you get any sleep last
night?’ And he said, ‘Well, not too much between the calls
from Bethesda that came in during the night.’ I said,
‘What about?’ He said, ‘Oh. Whether that was an
entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat.’ He said,
‘They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance
wound.’
From: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html
Post by d***@gmail.com
John, you mention the buffs' obsession with the New Orleans testimony of
Dr. Finck, but they cherry-pick that testimony and almost always leave out
his clarification on the who-is-in-charge thing, stating that it had
nothing to do with the conduct of autopsy.
Tony suggests that Finck might have not been able to distinguish between
an Army General and Navy "General". Pierre Finck was a Colonel and
certainly had enough experience in the military to know the difference.
Finck, himself, was only one rank below Brigadier General at the time. The
Navy doesn't have Generals - they have Admirals. The Marine Corps, which
operates under the Department of the Navy, has Generals, however. Either
way, what difference does any of that make? The point is that nobody - no
General or Admiral - was ordering the conduct of the autopsy - certainly
not in the manner as most conspiracy theorists see it. Yet, there can be
little doubt that Humes didn't feel pressure to finish sooner rather than
later.
Some of the enlisted men that were part of the autopsy team said they
heard commands from Burkley like 'you don't need to do that, move on' and
similar remarks.
Post by d***@gmail.com
It wasn't a perfect autopsy but it was good enough. Even Dr. Earl Rose,
the Parkland doctor who would have done the autopsy had Kennedy's body
remained in Dallas and who served on the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel,
agreed with the fundamental conclusions of the Bethesda autopsy.
In fact, in 1978, Vincent Bugliosi asked Dr. Earl Rose (now retired),
"Were you satisfied from your review of the autopsy photos and x-rays that
the autopsy surgeons reached the same conclusion you would have reached if
you had conducted the autopsy back in 1963 in Dallas?"
Dr. Earl Rose: "Yes, there’s no question their conclusions were
correct. Two shots entered the president from behind, the entrance wound
to the back exiting in the throat at the site of the tracheotomy and the
entrance wound to the back of the head exiting in the right frontal
temporal area."
Earl Rose was shown the same material that the medical panels were
shown, which was limited to information that would support the phony
Autopsy Report (AR). No one that reviewed the autopsy from the data could
make any other conclusion, yet those that saw the proof in the body DURING
the autopsy, when the organs were removed, knew that the back wound bullet
never left the body of JFK through the throat wound. If (for instance) he
had been shown the bullet wound in the forehead/temple area, there would
have ben a different attitude and conclusions from Rose and the panels
too.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Rose had some minor criticisms, but he still agreed with the fundamental
conclusions. He said some of the wound locations are poorly described.
Rose also said that the three pathologists were not inept as if often
mentioned and that they were quite competent.
Rose went on to say that "You can’t blame the autopsy surgeons for
the fact that the autopsy should have been more complete ... considering
they were operating under the most trying, tremendously difficult
circumstances."
SIDENOTE: Back in 1978, while attending the United States Naval Academy in
Annapolis, MD, I actually got the opportunity to speak briefly (over the
phone) with Dr. James Humes (retired). I was doing a report for a
Political Science course I was taking called "Investigative Research",
although my major was Aerospace Engineering. [I admit, I took the class
mostly because there was no classroom attendance required and that my
grade was 100% based on the quality of the end-of-semester presentation.
It was part research, part public speaking and part developing a formal
presentation. The Kennedy assassination was very topical at the time
because of the HSCA which seemed to be in the Washington Post and
Baltimore Sun on a daily basis. I got to attend a couple public sessions
of the HSCA, an opportunity mostly afforded due to the proximity of
Annapolis to Washington, D.C. and my being an active duty military member.
I was there the day Louie Steven Witt was questioned, the beginning of the
first semester of my senior year, I believe. It was comical when the
umbrella was opened.] I think Humes only talked to me (i.e tolerated me)
was because I was a Navy midshipman. He struck me as a somewhat bitter man
due to the many criticisms of him over the years - everything from being a
total incompetent to being PART of the plot to cover-up the truth of the
assassination. He struck me as a scarred individual. When I read his ARRB
testimony, I can "hear" a lot of that same bitterness, anger and sarcasm.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Humes may also have been embittered by being forced to lie about the
autopsy, which might have been a major item in his service record, but
became a burden when he had to go all over and lie to everyone about it,
and be blamed for all kinds of things he had to concoct on the spur of the
moment.
The autopsy team suspected by the time the autopsy was completed that a
tracheostomy had been performed over the exit wound which is why they
originally didn't think there had been one. Humes wanted to verify that
with Dr. Perry directly and that conversation took place the following
morning. There had been conversations between Parkland and Bethesda during
the autopsy but Saturday morning is when Humes spoke directly to Perry.
You can't cite a single witness who said Humes spoke directly to Perry the
previous night.
mainframetech
2018-07-23 21:17:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Interesting that buffs obsess on the New Orleans trial testimony, when
there is copious evidence from both Manchester and the HSCA
interviews.
It was Adm. George Burkley who was (correctly) assumed to represent
"the family" and who was hurrying things up.
.John
Exactly!
There are actually three points of authority conflict that occurred at
Bethesda.
First, there was the encounter outside the morgue when the body was
arriving. Humes noticed a gentleman with a camera and, knowing he
shouldn't be there, asked "Who's in charge?" - meaning, "Who is in charge
of this operation such that a rogue photographer is permitted to be
roaming around?" It had nothing to do with the autopsy. Humes received an
answer from General Philip C. Wehle, "I am!". General Wehle never even
entered the morgue and was not on the FBI list of those who were inside
morgue during the autopsy.
Then there was some confusion at the early stages as to the extent of the
autopsy. In all likelihood, Humes felt pressure from the very beginning.
"Just how long is this going to take? Hurry up! We know how the president
died. There's no need to hack him to pieces. The family is waiting." (my
words, of course)
Humes had to consult with his boss, Admiral Calvin B. Galloway, regarding
what KIND of autopsy was to be done - a partial or full? Admiral Galloway
authorized a FULL autopsy.
Yet, despite the authorization to conduct a full autopsy, the pressure
persisted throughout the procedure with frequent phone calls come from the
17th floor. "How much longer?" Much of this pressure was probably coming
from both Admiral George Burkley and General Godfrey McHugh. My guess is
that Humes finally gave in to some of this pressure and didn't perform
some time consuming procedures. Tracking the back/neck wound would have
been time consuming and, at the time, seemed somewhat pointless since they
already knew where the entry wound was ... they also "knew" that there was
no exit wound ... they also knew no bullet was embedded ... and they had
received word that a bullet was recovered at Parkland. So, what else could
Humes conclude at this point OTHER than the bullet did not transit and,
somehow, fell out through its point of entry? They hypothesized that this
might have occurred during attempts at cardiac resuscitation (which was
never performed).
It was puzzling because, on its face, that seems like a very unlikely
occurrence which is why Humes quickly changed his mind when a far more
plausible explanation presented itself once he discovered about the throat
wound the following day during his phone conversation with Dr. Perry - a
conversation that SHOULD have occurred BEFORE the autopsy even began - a
mistake to which Humes readily admitted.
Humes lied when he said that he learned about the tracheostomy on
Saturday morning. He needed an excuse for why he had burned his notes,
which was not supposed to be done. The notes were to be saved in all
cases. Here's the proof that Humes knew DURING the autopsy or before,
http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
As well, Dr. Ebersole (radiologist) spoke about knowing DURING the
"After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole,
MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, “Ebersole had told me
during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound
from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he
had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy
– that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that
intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound –
corresponding to the back entrance wound – was
solved.”[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two
hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm
"Given permission, she continues, “Saturday morning when I got
over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of
course he had been primary until Dr. Clark came … He sat down in a
chair. I said, ‘You look awful. Did you get any sleep last
night?’ And he said, ‘Well, not too much between the calls
from Bethesda that came in during the night.’ I said,
‘What about?’ He said, ‘Oh. Whether that was an
entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat.’ He said,
‘They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance
wound.’
From: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html
Post by d***@gmail.com
John, you mention the buffs' obsession with the New Orleans testimony of
Dr. Finck, but they cherry-pick that testimony and almost always leave out
his clarification on the who-is-in-charge thing, stating that it had
nothing to do with the conduct of autopsy.
Tony suggests that Finck might have not been able to distinguish between
an Army General and Navy "General". Pierre Finck was a Colonel and
certainly had enough experience in the military to know the difference.
Finck, himself, was only one rank below Brigadier General at the time. The
Navy doesn't have Generals - they have Admirals. The Marine Corps, which
operates under the Department of the Navy, has Generals, however. Either
way, what difference does any of that make? The point is that nobody - no
General or Admiral - was ordering the conduct of the autopsy - certainly
not in the manner as most conspiracy theorists see it. Yet, there can be
little doubt that Humes didn't feel pressure to finish sooner rather than
later.
Some of the enlisted men that were part of the autopsy team said they
heard commands from Burkley like 'you don't need to do that, move on' and
similar remarks.
Post by d***@gmail.com
It wasn't a perfect autopsy but it was good enough. Even Dr. Earl Rose,
the Parkland doctor who would have done the autopsy had Kennedy's body
remained in Dallas and who served on the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel,
agreed with the fundamental conclusions of the Bethesda autopsy.
In fact, in 1978, Vincent Bugliosi asked Dr. Earl Rose (now retired),
"Were you satisfied from your review of the autopsy photos and x-rays that
the autopsy surgeons reached the same conclusion you would have reached if
you had conducted the autopsy back in 1963 in Dallas?"
Dr. Earl Rose: "Yes, there’s no question their conclusions were
correct. Two shots entered the president from behind, the entrance wound
to the back exiting in the throat at the site of the tracheotomy and the
entrance wound to the back of the head exiting in the right frontal
temporal area."
Earl Rose was shown the same material that the medical panels were
shown, which was limited to information that would support the phony
Autopsy Report (AR). No one that reviewed the autopsy from the data could
make any other conclusion, yet those that saw the proof in the body DURING
the autopsy, when the organs were removed, knew that the back wound bullet
never left the body of JFK through the throat wound. If (for instance) he
had been shown the bullet wound in the forehead/temple area, there would
have ben a different attitude and conclusions from Rose and the panels
too.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Rose had some minor criticisms, but he still agreed with the fundamental
conclusions. He said some of the wound locations are poorly described.
Rose also said that the three pathologists were not inept as if often
mentioned and that they were quite competent.
Rose went on to say that "You can’t blame the autopsy surgeons for
the fact that the autopsy should have been more complete ... considering
they were operating under the most trying, tremendously difficult
circumstances."
SIDENOTE: Back in 1978, while attending the United States Naval Academy in
Annapolis, MD, I actually got the opportunity to speak briefly (over the
phone) with Dr. James Humes (retired). I was doing a report for a
Political Science course I was taking called "Investigative Research",
although my major was Aerospace Engineering. [I admit, I took the class
mostly because there was no classroom attendance required and that my
grade was 100% based on the quality of the end-of-semester presentation.
It was part research, part public speaking and part developing a formal
presentation. The Kennedy assassination was very topical at the time
because of the HSCA which seemed to be in the Washington Post and
Baltimore Sun on a daily basis. I got to attend a couple public sessions
of the HSCA, an opportunity mostly afforded due to the proximity of
Annapolis to Washington, D.C. and my being an active duty military member.
I was there the day Louie Steven Witt was questioned, the beginning of the
first semester of my senior year, I believe. It was comical when the
umbrella was opened.] I think Humes only talked to me (i.e tolerated me)
was because I was a Navy midshipman. He struck me as a somewhat bitter man
due to the many criticisms of him over the years - everything from being a
total incompetent to being PART of the plot to cover-up the truth of the
assassination. He struck me as a scarred individual. When I read his ARRB
testimony, I can "hear" a lot of that same bitterness, anger and sarcasm.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Humes may also have been embittered by being forced to lie about the
autopsy, which might have been a major item in his service record, but
became a burden when he had to go all over and lie to everyone about it,
and be blamed for all kinds of things he had to concoct on the spur of the
moment.
The autopsy team suspected by the time the autopsy was completed that a
tracheostomy had been performed over the exit wound which is why they
originally didn't think there had been one. Humes wanted to verify that
with Dr. Perry directly and that conversation took place the following
morning. There had been conversations between Parkland and Bethesda during
the autopsy but Saturday morning is when Humes spoke directly to Perry.
You can't cite a single witness who said Humes spoke directly to Perry the
previous night.
WRONG as usual! Your lack of knowledge about this case leads you
into trouble often. Here are 3 witnesses proving that Humes knew the day
of the murder that a tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound in the
throat.

1. Dr. Livingston - http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg

2. Dr. Ebersole

"After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole,
MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, “Ebersole had told me
during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound
from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he
had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy
– that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that
intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound –
corresponding to the back entrance wound – was
solved.”[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two
hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy."

From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm

3. Nurse Audrey Bell -

"Given permission, she continues, “Saturday morning when I got
over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of
course he had been primary until Dr. Clark came … He sat down in a
chair. I said, ‘You look awful. Did you get any sleep last
night?’ And he said, ‘Well, not too much between the calls
from Bethesda that came in during the night.’ I said,
‘What about?’ He said, ‘Oh. Whether that was an
entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat.’ He said,
‘They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance
wound.’” [31] Nurse Bell clarifies that her exchange with
Dr. Perry occurred in the morning, before he decamped just after the
Saturday press conference, during which he was silent after telling Dr.
Kemp Clark what Humes had told him, and asking Clark to take over for him
to avoid having to lie at the Saturday afternoon press conference. Chalk
up another perjury for Humes, who testified that he did not discuss the
results of the autopsy with Dr. Perry. [32] The frosting on the cover-up
cake may now be tasted. Perry talked to Humes on Friday and told him that
the throat wound was an entrance wound, as did Dr. Livingston, and almost
certainly others."

From: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html


Humes knew about the tracheostomy during the autopsy. Try and get it
right next time.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-24 21:12:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot
Post by bigdog
The autopsy team suspected by the time the autopsy was completed that a
tracheostomy had been performed over the exit wound which is why they
originally didn't think there had been one. Humes wanted to verify that
with Dr. Perry directly and that conversation took place the following
morning. There had been conversations between Parkland and Bethesda during
the autopsy but Saturday morning is when Humes spoke directly to Perry.
You can't cite a single witness who said Humes spoke directly to Perry the
previous night.
WRONG as usual! Your lack of knowledge about this case leads you
into trouble often. Here are 3 witnesses proving that Humes knew the day
of the murder that a tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound in the
throat.
1. Dr. Livingston - http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
2. Dr. Ebersole
"After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole,
MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, “Ebersole had told me
during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound
from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he
had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy
– that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that
intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound –
corresponding to the back entrance wound – was
solved.”[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two
hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm
3. Nurse Audrey Bell -
"Given permission, she continues, “Saturday morning when I got
over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of
course he had been primary until Dr. Clark came … He sat down in a
chair. I said, ‘You look awful. Did you get any sleep last
night?’ And he said, ‘Well, not too much between the calls
from Bethesda that came in during the night.’ I said,
‘What about?’ He said, ‘Oh. Whether that was an
entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat.’ He said,
‘They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance
wound.’” [31] Nurse Bell clarifies that her exchange with
Dr. Perry occurred in the morning, before he decamped just after the
Saturday press conference, during which he was silent after telling Dr.
Kemp Clark what Humes had told him, and asking Clark to take over for him
to avoid having to lie at the Saturday afternoon press conference. Chalk
up another perjury for Humes, who testified that he did not discuss the
results of the autopsy with Dr. Perry. [32] The frosting on the cover-up
cake may now be tasted. Perry talked to Humes on Friday and told him that
the throat wound was an entrance wound, as did Dr. Livingston, and almost
certainly others."
From: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html
Humes knew about the tracheostomy during the autopsy. Try and get it
right next time.
Try reading for comprehension next time. I stated that the autopsy team
suspected during the autopsy that the tracheostomy incision had been
performed over the bullet hole but that wasn't confirmed until the next
morning when Humes spoke directly to Perry. None of the witnesses you have
cited refutes that. Livingston did not claim to have told Humes that the
tracheostomy incision had been performed over the bullet hole because he
had no way of knowing that. You didn't quote Ebersole, you quoted Mantik
but even he doesn't tell us Humes spoke to Perry the night of the autopsy.
Bell did not say Humes and Perry spoke to each other on Friday night
either. Not only did you not comprehend what I wrote, you failed to
comprehend what the people you cited said either.
mainframetech
2018-07-27 00:57:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot
Post by bigdog
The autopsy team suspected by the time the autopsy was completed that a
tracheostomy had been performed over the exit wound which is why they
originally didn't think there had been one. Humes wanted to verify that
with Dr. Perry directly and that conversation took place the following
morning. There had been conversations between Parkland and Bethesda during
the autopsy but Saturday morning is when Humes spoke directly to Perry.
You can't cite a single witness who said Humes spoke directly to Perry the
previous night.
WRONG as usual! Your lack of knowledge about this case leads you
into trouble often. Here are 3 witnesses proving that Humes knew the day
of the murder that a tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound in the
throat.
1. Dr. Livingston - http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
2. Dr. Ebersole
"After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole,
MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, “Ebersole had told me
during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound
from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he
had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy
– that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that
intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound –
corresponding to the back entrance wound – was
solved.”[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two
hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm
3. Nurse Audrey Bell -
"Given permission, she continues, “Saturday morning when I got
over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of
course he had been primary until Dr. Clark came … He sat down in a
chair. I said, ‘You look awful. Did you get any sleep last
night?’ And he said, ‘Well, not too much between the calls
from Bethesda that came in during the night.’ I said,
‘What about?’ He said, ‘Oh. Whether that was an
entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat.’ He said,
‘They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance
wound.’” [31] Nurse Bell clarifies that her exchange with
Dr. Perry occurred in the morning, before he decamped just after the
Saturday press conference, during which he was silent after telling Dr.
Kemp Clark what Humes had told him, and asking Clark to take over for him
to avoid having to lie at the Saturday afternoon press conference. Chalk
up another perjury for Humes, who testified that he did not discuss the
results of the autopsy with Dr. Perry. [32] The frosting on the cover-up
cake may now be tasted. Perry talked to Humes on Friday and told him that
the throat wound was an entrance wound, as did Dr. Livingston, and almost
certainly others."
From: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html
Humes knew about the tracheostomy during the autopsy. Try and get it
right next time.
Try reading for comprehension next time. I stated that the autopsy team
suspected during the autopsy that the tracheostomy incision had been
performed over the bullet hole but that wasn't confirmed until the next
morning when Humes spoke directly to Perry. None of the witnesses you have
cited refutes that. Livingston did not claim to have told Humes that the
tracheostomy incision had been performed over the bullet hole because he
had no way of knowing that. You didn't quote Ebersole, you quoted Mantik
but even he doesn't tell us Humes spoke to Perry the night of the autopsy.
Bell did not say Humes and Perry spoke to each other on Friday night
either. Not only did you not comprehend what I wrote, you failed to
comprehend what the people you cited said either.
WRONG! I have Ebersole's words from his testimony. Looks like you
fell into it again. Here:

"Dr. EBERSOLE. Somewhere in the course of the evening Dr. Humes received
information from Dallas re the procedures that had been carried out there,
number one. Number two, somewhere in the course of the evening Dallas sent
to us the bony fragments you saw which were X rayed as to how this was
carried out. The mechanics I don't know. Somewhere in the course of the
autopsy Dr. Humes was made aware of the surgical procedures at Dallas
vis-a-vis the neck.
Mr. PURDY. And what was that information?
Dr. EBERSOLE. The information was that there had been a wound of exit there,
a tracheotomy and a suturing done."

From: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ebersole.htm


Now Livingston had a way of knowing things, called a telephone, but
his video said he told Humes that there was a bullet entrance near to the
tracheotomy. It was enough for Humes to figure out that they overlapped
once he saw the throat. However, here are the words also of Dr. Perry at
Parkland:

"Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations
with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital?
Dr. PERRY - Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - When did that conversation occur?
Dr. PERRY - My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in
doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but
I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have an independent recollection at this moment as to
whether it was on Friday or Saturday?
Dr. PERRY - No, sir; I have thought about it again and the events surrounding
that weekend were very kaleidoscopic, and I talked with Dr. Humes on two
occasions, separated by a very short interval of, I think it was, 30 minutes
or an hour or so, it could have been a little longer.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the medium of your conversation?
Dr. PERRY - Over the telephone.
Mr. SPECTER - Did he identify himself to you as Dr. Humes of Bethesda?
Dr. PERRY - He did.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you state as specifically as you can recollect the
conversation that you first had with him?
Dr. PERRY - He advised me that he could not discuss with me the findings of
necropsy, that he had a few questions he would like to clarify. The initial
phone call was in relation to my doing a tracheotomy. Since I had made the
incision directly through the wound in the neck, it made it difficult for
them to ascertain the exact nature of this wound. Of course, that did not
occur to me at the time."


Note that Perry's first impression was that he spoke with Humes Friday
night, but it sounds like someone told him it was Saturday later.

The third person was Nurse Audrey Bell, who heard the complaints of
DR. Perry, who aid he was getting calls from Humes at night. So that fits
with Perry's first impression.

Chris
John McAdams
2018-07-27 01:00:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot
Try reading for comprehension next time. I stated that the autopsy team
suspected during the autopsy that the tracheostomy incision had been
performed over the bullet hole but that wasn't confirmed until the next
morning when Humes spoke directly to Perry. None of the witnesses you have
cited refutes that. Livingston did not claim to have told Humes that the
tracheostomy incision had been performed over the bullet hole because he
had no way of knowing that. You didn't quote Ebersole, you quoted Mantik
but even he doesn't tell us Humes spoke to Perry the night of the autopsy.
Bell did not say Humes and Perry spoke to each other on Friday night
either. Not only did you not comprehend what I wrote, you failed to
comprehend what the people you cited said either.
WRONG! I have Ebersole's words from his testimony. Looks like you
"Dr. EBERSOLE. Somewhere in the course of the evening Dr. Humes received
information from Dallas re the procedures that had been carried out there,
number one. Number two, somewhere in the course of the evening Dallas sent
to us the bony fragments you saw which were X rayed as to how this was
carried out. The mechanics I don't know. Somewhere in the course of the
autopsy Dr. Humes was made aware of the surgical procedures at Dallas
vis-a-vis the neck.
Mr. PURDY. And what was that information?
Dr. EBERSOLE. The information was that there had been a wound of exit there,
a tracheotomy and a suturing done."
From: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ebersole.htm
Now Livingston had a way of knowing things, called a telephone, but
his video said he told Humes that there was a bullet entrance near to the
tracheotomy. It was enough for Humes to figure out that they overlapped
once he saw the throat. However, here are the words also of Dr. Perry at
"Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations
with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital?
Dr. PERRY - Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - When did that conversation occur?
Dr. PERRY - My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in
doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but
I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have an independent recollection at this moment as to
whether it was on Friday or Saturday?
Dr. PERRY - No, sir; I have thought about it again and the events surrounding
that weekend were very kaleidoscopic, and I talked with Dr. Humes on two
occasions, separated by a very short interval of, I think it was, 30 minutes
or an hour or so, it could have been a little longer.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the medium of your conversation?
Dr. PERRY - Over the telephone.
Mr. SPECTER - Did he identify himself to you as Dr. Humes of Bethesda?
Dr. PERRY - He did.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you state as specifically as you can recollect the
conversation that you first had with him?
Dr. PERRY - He advised me that he could not discuss with me the findings of
necropsy, that he had a few questions he would like to clarify. The initial
phone call was in relation to my doing a tracheotomy. Since I had made the
incision directly through the wound in the neck, it made it difficult for
them to ascertain the exact nature of this wound. Of course, that did not
occur to me at the time."
Note that Perry's first impression was that he spoke with Humes Friday
night, but it sounds like someone told him it was Saturday later.
The third person was Nurse Audrey Bell, who heard the complaints of
DR. Perry, who aid he was getting calls from Humes at night. So that fits
with Perry's first impression.
Your problem is simple: if Humes knew the night of the autopsy that a
tracheotomy obscured the throat wound, why didn't he then reach the
conclusion he eventually *did* reach: that the bullet had exited the
throat.

Given that the back wound was an entrance (with an abrasion collar)
and no bullet was found in the torso, it was the obvious one.

*If* you knew about a wound in the throat.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
bigdog
2018-07-28 03:53:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot
Try reading for comprehension next time. I stated that the autopsy team
suspected during the autopsy that the tracheostomy incision had been
performed over the bullet hole but that wasn't confirmed until the next
morning when Humes spoke directly to Perry. None of the witnesses you have
cited refutes that. Livingston did not claim to have told Humes that the
tracheostomy incision had been performed over the bullet hole because he
had no way of knowing that. You didn't quote Ebersole, you quoted Mantik
but even he doesn't tell us Humes spoke to Perry the night of the autopsy.
Bell did not say Humes and Perry spoke to each other on Friday night
either. Not only did you not comprehend what I wrote, you failed to
comprehend what the people you cited said either.
WRONG! I have Ebersole's words from his testimony. Looks like you
"Dr. EBERSOLE. Somewhere in the course of the evening Dr. Humes received
information from Dallas re the procedures that had been carried out there,
number one. Number two, somewhere in the course of the evening Dallas sent
to us the bony fragments you saw which were X rayed as to how this was
carried out. The mechanics I don't know. Somewhere in the course of the
autopsy Dr. Humes was made aware of the surgical procedures at Dallas
vis-a-vis the neck.
Mr. PURDY. And what was that information?
Dr. EBERSOLE. The information was that there had been a wound of exit there,
a tracheotomy and a suturing done."
From: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ebersole.htm
Now Livingston had a way of knowing things, called a telephone, but
his video said he told Humes that there was a bullet entrance near to the
tracheotomy. It was enough for Humes to figure out that they overlapped
once he saw the throat. However, here are the words also of Dr. Perry at
"Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations
with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital?
Dr. PERRY - Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - When did that conversation occur?
Dr. PERRY - My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in
doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but
I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have an independent recollection at this moment as to
whether it was on Friday or Saturday?
Dr. PERRY - No, sir; I have thought about it again and the events surrounding
that weekend were very kaleidoscopic, and I talked with Dr. Humes on two
occasions, separated by a very short interval of, I think it was, 30 minutes
or an hour or so, it could have been a little longer.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the medium of your conversation?
Dr. PERRY - Over the telephone.
Mr. SPECTER - Did he identify himself to you as Dr. Humes of Bethesda?
Dr. PERRY - He did.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you state as specifically as you can recollect the
conversation that you first had with him?
Dr. PERRY - He advised me that he could not discuss with me the findings of
necropsy, that he had a few questions he would like to clarify. The initial
phone call was in relation to my doing a tracheotomy. Since I had made the
incision directly through the wound in the neck, it made it difficult for
them to ascertain the exact nature of this wound. Of course, that did not
occur to me at the time."
Note that Perry's first impression was that he spoke with Humes Friday
night, but it sounds like someone told him it was Saturday later.
The third person was Nurse Audrey Bell, who heard the complaints of
DR. Perry, who aid he was getting calls from Humes at night. So that fits
with Perry's first impression.
Your problem is simple: if Humes knew the night of the autopsy that a
tracheotomy obscured the throat wound, why didn't he then reach the
conclusion he eventually *did* reach: that the bullet had exited the
throat.
Given that the back wound was an entrance (with an abrasion collar)
and no bullet was found in the torso, it was the obvious one.
*If* you knew about a wound in the throat.
Excellent point. I'm embarrassed that after going around and around with
Chris on this that your argument had not occurred to me before. Had they
known they had a bullet hole in the throat they would not have been
stumped by the lack of a bullet in the body and would never have floated
bizarre ideas like an ice bullet or a shallow bullet being forced out by
heart massage.
mainframetech
2018-07-29 18:12:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot
Try reading for comprehension next time. I stated that the autopsy team
suspected during the autopsy that the tracheostomy incision had been
performed over the bullet hole but that wasn't confirmed until the next
morning when Humes spoke directly to Perry. None of the witnesses you have
cited refutes that. Livingston did not claim to have told Humes that the
tracheostomy incision had been performed over the bullet hole because he
had no way of knowing that. You didn't quote Ebersole, you quoted Mantik
but even he doesn't tell us Humes spoke to Perry the night of the autopsy.
Bell did not say Humes and Perry spoke to each other on Friday night
either. Not only did you not comprehend what I wrote, you failed to
comprehend what the people you cited said either.
WRONG! I have Ebersole's words from his testimony. Looks like you
"Dr. EBERSOLE. Somewhere in the course of the evening Dr. Humes received
information from Dallas re the procedures that had been carried out there,
number one. Number two, somewhere in the course of the evening Dallas sent
to us the bony fragments you saw which were X rayed as to how this was
carried out. The mechanics I don't know. Somewhere in the course of the
autopsy Dr. Humes was made aware of the surgical procedures at Dallas
vis-a-vis the neck.
Mr. PURDY. And what was that information?
Dr. EBERSOLE. The information was that there had been a wound of exit there,
a tracheotomy and a suturing done."
From: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ebersole.htm
Now Livingston had a way of knowing things, called a telephone, but
his video said he told Humes that there was a bullet entrance near to the
tracheotomy. It was enough for Humes to figure out that they overlapped
once he saw the throat. However, here are the words also of Dr. Perry at
"Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations
with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital?
Dr. PERRY - Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - When did that conversation occur?
Dr. PERRY - My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in
doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but
I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have an independent recollection at this moment as to
whether it was on Friday or Saturday?
Dr. PERRY - No, sir; I have thought about it again and the events surrounding
that weekend were very kaleidoscopic, and I talked with Dr. Humes on two
occasions, separated by a very short interval of, I think it was, 30 minutes
or an hour or so, it could have been a little longer.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the medium of your conversation?
Dr. PERRY - Over the telephone.
Mr. SPECTER - Did he identify himself to you as Dr. Humes of Bethesda?
Dr. PERRY - He did.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you state as specifically as you can recollect the
conversation that you first had with him?
Dr. PERRY - He advised me that he could not discuss with me the findings of
necropsy, that he had a few questions he would like to clarify. The initial
phone call was in relation to my doing a tracheotomy. Since I had made the
incision directly through the wound in the neck, it made it difficult for
them to ascertain the exact nature of this wound. Of course, that did not
occur to me at the time."
Note that Perry's first impression was that he spoke with Humes Friday
night, but it sounds like someone told him it was Saturday later.
The third person was Nurse Audrey Bell, who heard the complaints of
DR. Perry, who aid he was getting calls from Humes at night. So that fits
with Perry's first impression.
Your problem is simple: if Humes knew the night of the autopsy that a
tracheotomy obscured the throat wound, why didn't he then reach the
conclusion he eventually *did* reach: that the bullet had exited the
throat.
Given that the back wound was an entrance (with an abrasion collar)
and no bullet was found in the torso, it was the obvious one.
*If* you knew about a wound in the throat.
Excellent point. I'm embarrassed that after going around and around with
Chris on this that your argument had not occurred to me before. Had they
known they had a bullet hole in the throat they would not have been
stumped by the lack of a bullet in the body and would never have floated
bizarre ideas like an ice bullet or a shallow bullet being forced out by
heart massage.
Get off it! There were 3 witnesses that made corroboration to the
fact that Humes knew DURING the autopsy, and probably before it, that the
tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound. And if it wasn't Humes on the
phone when the info was mentioned, that person would pass it on to Humes,
who was nominally in charge of the autopsy. I don't know why you enjoy
skating on such thin ice.

BTW, the 'ice bullet' idea as from James Sibert, the FBI agent.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-30 02:10:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot
Try reading for comprehension next time. I stated that the autopsy team
suspected during the autopsy that the tracheostomy incision had been
performed over the bullet hole but that wasn't confirmed until the next
morning when Humes spoke directly to Perry. None of the witnesses you have
cited refutes that. Livingston did not claim to have told Humes that the
tracheostomy incision had been performed over the bullet hole because he
had no way of knowing that. You didn't quote Ebersole, you quoted Mantik
but even he doesn't tell us Humes spoke to Perry the night of the autopsy.
Bell did not say Humes and Perry spoke to each other on Friday night
either. Not only did you not comprehend what I wrote, you failed to
comprehend what the people you cited said either.
WRONG! I have Ebersole's words from his testimony. Looks like you
"Dr. EBERSOLE. Somewhere in the course of the evening Dr. Humes received
information from Dallas re the procedures that had been carried out there,
number one. Number two, somewhere in the course of the evening Dallas sent
to us the bony fragments you saw which were X rayed as to how this was
carried out. The mechanics I don't know. Somewhere in the course of the
autopsy Dr. Humes was made aware of the surgical procedures at Dallas
vis-a-vis the neck.
Mr. PURDY. And what was that information?
Dr. EBERSOLE. The information was that there had been a wound of exit there,
a tracheotomy and a suturing done."
From: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ebersole.htm
Now Livingston had a way of knowing things, called a telephone, but
his video said he told Humes that there was a bullet entrance near to the
tracheotomy. It was enough for Humes to figure out that they overlapped
once he saw the throat. However, here are the words also of Dr. Perry at
"Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations
with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital?
Dr. PERRY - Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - When did that conversation occur?
Dr. PERRY - My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in
doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but
I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have an independent recollection at this moment as to
whether it was on Friday or Saturday?
Dr. PERRY - No, sir; I have thought about it again and the events surrounding
that weekend were very kaleidoscopic, and I talked with Dr. Humes on two
occasions, separated by a very short interval of, I think it was, 30 minutes
or an hour or so, it could have been a little longer.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the medium of your conversation?
Dr. PERRY - Over the telephone.
Mr. SPECTER - Did he identify himself to you as Dr. Humes of Bethesda?
Dr. PERRY - He did.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you state as specifically as you can recollect the
conversation that you first had with him?
Dr. PERRY - He advised me that he could not discuss with me the findings of
necropsy, that he had a few questions he would like to clarify. The initial
phone call was in relation to my doing a tracheotomy. Since I had made the
incision directly through the wound in the neck, it made it difficult for
them to ascertain the exact nature of this wound. Of course, that did not
occur to me at the time."
Note that Perry's first impression was that he spoke with Humes Friday
night, but it sounds like someone told him it was Saturday later.
The third person was Nurse Audrey Bell, who heard the complaints of
DR. Perry, who aid he was getting calls from Humes at night. So that fits
with Perry's first impression.
Your problem is simple: if Humes knew the night of the autopsy that a
tracheotomy obscured the throat wound, why didn't he then reach the
conclusion he eventually *did* reach: that the bullet had exited the
throat.
Given that the back wound was an entrance (with an abrasion collar)
and no bullet was found in the torso, it was the obvious one.
*If* you knew about a wound in the throat.
Excellent point. I'm embarrassed that after going around and around with
Chris on this that your argument had not occurred to me before. Had they
known they had a bullet hole in the throat they would not have been
stumped by the lack of a bullet in the body and would never have floated
bizarre ideas like an ice bullet or a shallow bullet being forced out by
heart massage.
Get off it! There were 3 witnesses that made corroboration to the
fact that Humes knew DURING the autopsy, and probably before it, that the
tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound.
I'm sure that once that opened up the body and saw where the trail of
tissue damage led them, to the trachea, that they began to suspect that
was the case but still needed to confirm that with Parkland. They would
have no way of knowing that in the early stages of the autopsy when all
they had was an entry wound, no APPARENT exit, and no bullet in the body.
That didn't make sense to them and it is easy to understand why.
Post by mainframetech
And if it wasn't Humes on the
phone when the info was mentioned, that person would pass it on to Humes,
who was nominally in charge of the autopsy. I don't know why you enjoy
skating on such thin ice.
Does this mean you are finally coming around to the realization that there
is no evidence Humes spoke directly to Perry on Friday night, just as I
have been telling you. I have never disputed there was communications
between Bethesda and Parkland during the autopsy. What I have disputed is
that the team knew from the start that the tracheostomy had been performed
over the exit wound. They had no way of knowing that and as John McAdams
has correctly pointed out, had they know that, they wouldn't have
exhibited the early confusion as to what happened with the bullet that
entered the back.
Post by mainframetech
BTW, the 'ice bullet' idea as from James Sibert, the FBI agent.
Sibert was only reporting what he heard the autopsy team hypothesize. He
was there as an observer, not to do any analysis on his own.
mainframetech
2018-07-31 01:19:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot
Try reading for comprehension next time. I stated that the autopsy team
suspected during the autopsy that the tracheostomy incision had been
performed over the bullet hole but that wasn't confirmed until the next
morning when Humes spoke directly to Perry. None of the witnesses you have
cited refutes that. Livingston did not claim to have told Humes that the
tracheostomy incision had been performed over the bullet hole because he
had no way of knowing that. You didn't quote Ebersole, you quoted Mantik
but even he doesn't tell us Humes spoke to Perry the night of the autopsy.
Bell did not say Humes and Perry spoke to each other on Friday night
either. Not only did you not comprehend what I wrote, you failed to
comprehend what the people you cited said either.
WRONG! I have Ebersole's words from his testimony. Looks like you
"Dr. EBERSOLE. Somewhere in the course of the evening Dr. Humes received
information from Dallas re the procedures that had been carried out there,
number one. Number two, somewhere in the course of the evening Dallas sent
to us the bony fragments you saw which were X rayed as to how this was
carried out. The mechanics I don't know. Somewhere in the course of the
autopsy Dr. Humes was made aware of the surgical procedures at Dallas
vis-a-vis the neck.
Mr. PURDY. And what was that information?
Dr. EBERSOLE. The information was that there had been a wound of exit there,
a tracheotomy and a suturing done."
From: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ebersole.htm
Now Livingston had a way of knowing things, called a telephone, but
his video said he told Humes that there was a bullet entrance near to the
tracheotomy. It was enough for Humes to figure out that they overlapped
once he saw the throat. However, here are the words also of Dr. Perry at
"Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations
with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital?
Dr. PERRY - Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - When did that conversation occur?
Dr. PERRY - My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in
doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but
I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have an independent recollection at this moment as to
whether it was on Friday or Saturday?
Dr. PERRY - No, sir; I have thought about it again and the events surrounding
that weekend were very kaleidoscopic, and I talked with Dr. Humes on two
occasions, separated by a very short interval of, I think it was, 30 minutes
or an hour or so, it could have been a little longer.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the medium of your conversation?
Dr. PERRY - Over the telephone.
Mr. SPECTER - Did he identify himself to you as Dr. Humes of Bethesda?
Dr. PERRY - He did.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you state as specifically as you can recollect the
conversation that you first had with him?
Dr. PERRY - He advised me that he could not discuss with me the findings of
necropsy, that he had a few questions he would like to clarify. The initial
phone call was in relation to my doing a tracheotomy. Since I had made the
incision directly through the wound in the neck, it made it difficult for
them to ascertain the exact nature of this wound. Of course, that did not
occur to me at the time."
Note that Perry's first impression was that he spoke with Humes Friday
night, but it sounds like someone told him it was Saturday later.
The third person was Nurse Audrey Bell, who heard the complaints of
DR. Perry, who aid he was getting calls from Humes at night. So that fits
with Perry's first impression.
Your problem is simple: if Humes knew the night of the autopsy that a
tracheotomy obscured the throat wound, why didn't he then reach the
conclusion he eventually *did* reach: that the bullet had exited the
throat.
Given that the back wound was an entrance (with an abrasion collar)
and no bullet was found in the torso, it was the obvious one.
*If* you knew about a wound in the throat.
Excellent point. I'm embarrassed that after going around and around with
Chris on this that your argument had not occurred to me before. Had they
known they had a bullet hole in the throat they would not have been
stumped by the lack of a bullet in the body and would never have floated
bizarre ideas like an ice bullet or a shallow bullet being forced out by
heart massage.
Get off it! There were 3 witnesses that made corroboration to the
fact that Humes knew DURING the autopsy, and probably before it, that the
tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound.
I'm sure that once that opened up the body and saw where the trail of
tissue damage led them, to the trachea, that they began to suspect that
was the case but still needed to confirm that with Parkland. They would
have no way of knowing that in the early stages of the autopsy when all
they had was an entry wound, no APPARENT exit, and no bullet in the body.
That didn't make sense to them and it is easy to understand why.
There was no path that led them to the trachea. Since the back wound
bullet never went there. The throat wound as an entrance wound, and had
been described at stellate and punctate both of which are signs of an
entry wound. Dr. Perry was convinced it was an entry and complained when
Bethesda wanted him to change his conclusion to it being an exit wound.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And if it wasn't Humes on the
phone when the info was mentioned, that person would pass it on to Humes,
who was nominally in charge of the autopsy. I don't know why you enjoy
skating on such thin ice.
Does this mean you are finally coming around to the realization that there
is no evidence Humes spoke directly to Perry on Friday night, just as I
have been telling you. I have never disputed there was communications
between Bethesda and Parkland during the autopsy. What I have disputed is
that the team knew from the start that the tracheostomy had been performed
over the exit wound. They had no way of knowing that and as John McAdams
has correctly pointed out, had they know that, they wouldn't have
exhibited the early confusion as to what happened with the bullet that
entered the back.
Amazing how you carefully try to pretend you didn't know that Dr.
Livingston called Humes and told him of the nearness of the tracheostomy
to the bullet wound in the neck. And of course, of the 2 others that also
knew that Bethesda got word from Perry of the overlay. You can pick,
pick, pick all you like but it only shows that you have realized you've
lost and you're just hoping for a miracle. There is no doubt that Humes
got the word from one of the others if they had been on the phone instead
of himself. But as the head of the autopsy, Humes was the one in charge
and was probably the one on the phone.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
BTW, the 'ice bullet' idea as from James Sibert, the FBI agent.
Sibert was only reporting what he heard the autopsy team hypothesize. He
was there as an observer, not to do any analysis on his own.
It doesn't matter what he was there for, he stated himself that he
raised the various theories himself and called about them.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-30 15:06:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot
Try reading for comprehension next time. I stated that the autopsy team
suspected during the autopsy that the tracheostomy incision had been
performed over the bullet hole but that wasn't confirmed until the next
morning when Humes spoke directly to Perry. None of the witnesses you have
cited refutes that. Livingston did not claim to have told Humes that the
tracheostomy incision had been performed over the bullet hole because he
had no way of knowing that. You didn't quote Ebersole, you quoted Mantik
but even he doesn't tell us Humes spoke to Perry the night of the autopsy.
Bell did not say Humes and Perry spoke to each other on Friday night
either. Not only did you not comprehend what I wrote, you failed to
comprehend what the people you cited said either.
WRONG! I have Ebersole's words from his testimony. Looks like you
"Dr. EBERSOLE. Somewhere in the course of the evening Dr. Humes received
information from Dallas re the procedures that had been carried out there,
number one. Number two, somewhere in the course of the evening Dallas sent
to us the bony fragments you saw which were X rayed as to how this was
carried out. The mechanics I don't know. Somewhere in the course of the
autopsy Dr. Humes was made aware of the surgical procedures at Dallas
vis-a-vis the neck.
Mr. PURDY. And what was that information?
Dr. EBERSOLE. The information was that there had been a wound of exit there,
a tracheotomy and a suturing done."
From: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ebersole.htm
Now Livingston had a way of knowing things, called a telephone, but
his video said he told Humes that there was a bullet entrance near to the
tracheotomy. It was enough for Humes to figure out that they overlapped
once he saw the throat. However, here are the words also of Dr. Perry at
"Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations
with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital?
Dr. PERRY - Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - When did that conversation occur?
Dr. PERRY - My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in
doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but
I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have an independent recollection at this moment as to
whether it was on Friday or Saturday?
Dr. PERRY - No, sir; I have thought about it again and the events surrounding
that weekend were very kaleidoscopic, and I talked with Dr. Humes on two
occasions, separated by a very short interval of, I think it was, 30 minutes
or an hour or so, it could have been a little longer.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the medium of your conversation?
Dr. PERRY - Over the telephone.
Mr. SPECTER - Did he identify himself to you as Dr. Humes of Bethesda?
Dr. PERRY - He did.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you state as specifically as you can recollect the
conversation that you first had with him?
Dr. PERRY - He advised me that he could not discuss with me the findings of
necropsy, that he had a few questions he would like to clarify. The initial
phone call was in relation to my doing a tracheotomy. Since I had made the
incision directly through the wound in the neck, it made it difficult for
them to ascertain the exact nature of this wound. Of course, that did not
occur to me at the time."
Note that Perry's first impression was that he spoke with Humes Friday
night, but it sounds like someone told him it was Saturday later.
The third person was Nurse Audrey Bell, who heard the complaints of
DR. Perry, who aid he was getting calls from Humes at night. So that fits
with Perry's first impression.
Your problem is simple: if Humes knew the night of the autopsy that a
tracheotomy obscured the throat wound, why didn't he then reach the
conclusion he eventually *did* reach: that the bullet had exited the
throat.
Given that the back wound was an entrance (with an abrasion collar)
and no bullet was found in the torso, it was the obvious one.
*If* you knew about a wound in the throat.
Excellent point. I'm embarrassed that after going around and around with
Chris on this that your argument had not occurred to me before. Had they
known they had a bullet hole in the throat they would not have been
stumped by the lack of a bullet in the body and would never have floated
bizarre ideas like an ice bullet or a shallow bullet being forced out by
heart massage.
Get off it! There were 3 witnesses that made corroboration to the
fact that Humes knew DURING the autopsy, and probably before it, that the
tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound. And if it wasn't Humes on the
phone when the info was mentioned, that person would pass it on to Humes,
who was nominally in charge of the autopsy. I don't know why you enjoy
skating on such thin ice.
BTW, the 'ice bullet' idea as from James Sibert, the FBI agent.
Chris
Read the damn documents and stop making up crap!

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=145280#relPageId=373&tab=page

NB: Sibert says he helped carry in the DAMAGED casket. Not a shipping
casket. The one they had damaged getting it into the plane and removed
from the plane and up in the Navy ambulance.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=145280#relPageId=383&tab=page

There was discussion that the bullet could have been a"plastic" type or
an "ice"


DISCUSSION
WITH THE DOCTORS

PAGE 7 is missing.

Sibert: I don't remember anything about a bullet - you know they couldn't
find that bullet wound in the back - and they probed that and there was no
exit. So, I said, "Well, let me go and call over at the lab, see if there
is any kind of an ice bullet that might have fragmentized completely" That
was when I called agent Killion over at the lab, and he said, "Have you
learned about the bullet they found under the stretcher over at Parkland?"
Now, I came back and reported that to Humes, the chief pathologist, and
that's the only - I never saw that bullet. They were sending that bullet
in, but it didn't come into the autopsy room. I think they flew it into
the Washington area, and that went directly to the FBI laboratory, the
firearms section.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-29 18:22:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot
Try reading for comprehension next time. I stated that the autopsy team
suspected during the autopsy that the tracheostomy incision had been
performed over the bullet hole but that wasn't confirmed until the next
morning when Humes spoke directly to Perry. None of the witnesses you have
cited refutes that. Livingston did not claim to have told Humes that the
tracheostomy incision had been performed over the bullet hole because he
had no way of knowing that. You didn't quote Ebersole, you quoted Mantik
but even he doesn't tell us Humes spoke to Perry the night of the autopsy.
Bell did not say Humes and Perry spoke to each other on Friday night
either. Not only did you not comprehend what I wrote, you failed to
comprehend what the people you cited said either.
WRONG! I have Ebersole's words from his testimony. Looks like you
"Dr. EBERSOLE. Somewhere in the course of the evening Dr. Humes received
information from Dallas re the procedures that had been carried out there,
number one. Number two, somewhere in the course of the evening Dallas sent
to us the bony fragments you saw which were X rayed as to how this was
carried out. The mechanics I don't know. Somewhere in the course of the
autopsy Dr. Humes was made aware of the surgical procedures at Dallas
vis-a-vis the neck.
Mr. PURDY. And what was that information?
Dr. EBERSOLE. The information was that there had been a wound of exit there,
a tracheotomy and a suturing done."
From: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ebersole.htm
Now Livingston had a way of knowing things, called a telephone, but
his video said he told Humes that there was a bullet entrance near to the
tracheotomy. It was enough for Humes to figure out that they overlapped
once he saw the throat. However, here are the words also of Dr. Perry at
"Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations
with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital?
Dr. PERRY - Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - When did that conversation occur?
Dr. PERRY - My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in
doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but
I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have an independent recollection at this moment as to
whether it was on Friday or Saturday?
Dr. PERRY - No, sir; I have thought about it again and the events surrounding
that weekend were very kaleidoscopic, and I talked with Dr. Humes on two
occasions, separated by a very short interval of, I think it was, 30 minutes
or an hour or so, it could have been a little longer.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the medium of your conversation?
Dr. PERRY - Over the telephone.
Mr. SPECTER - Did he identify himself to you as Dr. Humes of Bethesda?
Dr. PERRY - He did.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you state as specifically as you can recollect the
conversation that you first had with him?
Dr. PERRY - He advised me that he could not discuss with me the findings of
necropsy, that he had a few questions he would like to clarify. The initial
phone call was in relation to my doing a tracheotomy. Since I had made the
incision directly through the wound in the neck, it made it difficult for
them to ascertain the exact nature of this wound. Of course, that did not
occur to me at the time."
Note that Perry's first impression was that he spoke with Humes Friday
night, but it sounds like someone told him it was Saturday later.
The third person was Nurse Audrey Bell, who heard the complaints of
DR. Perry, who aid he was getting calls from Humes at night. So that fits
with Perry's first impression.
Your problem is simple: if Humes knew the night of the autopsy that a
tracheotomy obscured the throat wound, why didn't he then reach the
conclusion he eventually *did* reach: that the bullet had exited the
throat.
Given that the back wound was an entrance (with an abrasion collar)
and no bullet was found in the torso, it was the obvious one.
*If* you knew about a wound in the throat.
Excellent point. I'm embarrassed that after going around and around with
Chris on this that your argument had not occurred to me before. Had they
known they had a bullet hole in the throat they would not have been
stumped by the lack of a bullet in the body and would never have floated
bizarre ideas like an ice bullet or a shallow bullet being forced out by
heart massage.
DUH!
You just figured this out?
Are you remembering to factor in the fact that the autopsy doctors were
UNQUALIFIED? The Three Stooges. Your Federal Government at work.
But if you remember the Boston Globe drawing it reflects what they
thought very early in the autopsy because they did not even know about
the BACK wound yet.


http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Globe11-23-63.jpg


IF YOU are lucky enough to SEE both the back wound and the throat wound at
the same time do you think EVEN you would be smart enough to figure it
out? Bingo! You're more qualified than the autopsy doctors.
n***@gmail.com
2018-07-30 15:13:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot
Try reading for comprehension next time. I stated that the autopsy team
suspected during the autopsy that the tracheostomy incision had been
performed over the bullet hole but that wasn't confirmed until the next
morning when Humes spoke directly to Perry. None of the witnesses you have
cited refutes that. Livingston did not claim to have told Humes that the
tracheostomy incision had been performed over the bullet hole because he
had no way of knowing that. You didn't quote Ebersole, you quoted Mantik
but even he doesn't tell us Humes spoke to Perry the night of the autopsy.
Bell did not say Humes and Perry spoke to each other on Friday night
either. Not only did you not comprehend what I wrote, you failed to
comprehend what the people you cited said either.
WRONG! I have Ebersole's words from his testimony. Looks like you
"Dr. EBERSOLE. Somewhere in the course of the evening Dr. Humes received
information from Dallas re the procedures that had been carried out there,
number one. Number two, somewhere in the course of the evening Dallas sent
to us the bony fragments you saw which were X rayed as to how this was
carried out. The mechanics I don't know. Somewhere in the course of the
autopsy Dr. Humes was made aware of the surgical procedures at Dallas
vis-a-vis the neck.
Mr. PURDY. And what was that information?
Dr. EBERSOLE. The information was that there had been a wound of exit there,
a tracheotomy and a suturing done."
From: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ebersole.htm
Now Livingston had a way of knowing things, called a telephone, but
his video said he told Humes that there was a bullet entrance near to the
tracheotomy. It was enough for Humes to figure out that they overlapped
once he saw the throat. However, here are the words also of Dr. Perry at
"Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations
with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital?
Dr. PERRY - Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - When did that conversation occur?
Dr. PERRY - My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in
doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but
I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have an independent recollection at this moment as to
whether it was on Friday or Saturday?
Dr. PERRY - No, sir; I have thought about it again and the events surrounding
that weekend were very kaleidoscopic, and I talked with Dr. Humes on two
occasions, separated by a very short interval of, I think it was, 30 minutes
or an hour or so, it could have been a little longer.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the medium of your conversation?
Dr. PERRY - Over the telephone.
Mr. SPECTER - Did he identify himself to you as Dr. Humes of Bethesda?
Dr. PERRY - He did.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you state as specifically as you can recollect the
conversation that you first had with him?
Dr. PERRY - He advised me that he could not discuss with me the findings of
necropsy, that he had a few questions he would like to clarify. The initial
phone call was in relation to my doing a tracheotomy. Since I had made the
incision directly through the wound in the neck, it made it difficult for
them to ascertain the exact nature of this wound. Of course, that did not
occur to me at the time."
Note that Perry's first impression was that he spoke with Humes Friday
night, but it sounds like someone told him it was Saturday later.
The third person was Nurse Audrey Bell, who heard the complaints of
DR. Perry, who aid he was getting calls from Humes at night. So that fits
with Perry's first impression.
Your problem is simple: if Humes knew the night of the autopsy that a
tracheotomy obscured the throat wound, why didn't he then reach the
conclusion he eventually *did* reach: that the bullet had exited the
throat.
Given that the back wound was an entrance (with an abrasion collar)
and no bullet was found in the torso, it was the obvious one.
*If* you knew about a wound in the throat.
Excellent point. I'm embarrassed that after going around and around with
Chris on this that your argument had not occurred to me before. Had they
known they had a bullet hole in the throat they would not have been
stumped by the lack of a bullet in the body and would never have floated
bizarre ideas like an ice bullet or a shallow bullet being forced out by
heart massage.
DUH!
You just figured this out?
Are you remembering to factor in the fact that the autopsy doctors were
UNQUALIFIED? The Three Stooges.
No. Three human beings trying to do their best under abnormal
circumstances. The irony is that you come across on here as Curly.

Mark
mainframetech
2018-07-28 04:08:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot
Try reading for comprehension next time. I stated that the autopsy team
suspected during the autopsy that the tracheostomy incision had been
performed over the bullet hole but that wasn't confirmed until the next
morning when Humes spoke directly to Perry. None of the witnesses you have
cited refutes that. Livingston did not claim to have told Humes that the
tracheostomy incision had been performed over the bullet hole because he
had no way of knowing that. You didn't quote Ebersole, you quoted Mantik
but even he doesn't tell us Humes spoke to Perry the night of the autopsy.
Bell did not say Humes and Perry spoke to each other on Friday night
either. Not only did you not comprehend what I wrote, you failed to
comprehend what the people you cited said either.
WRONG! I have Ebersole's words from his testimony. Looks like you
"Dr. EBERSOLE. Somewhere in the course of the evening Dr. Humes received
information from Dallas re the procedures that had been carried out there,
number one. Number two, somewhere in the course of the evening Dallas sent
to us the bony fragments you saw which were X rayed as to how this was
carried out. The mechanics I don't know. Somewhere in the course of the
autopsy Dr. Humes was made aware of the surgical procedures at Dallas
vis-a-vis the neck.
Mr. PURDY. And what was that information?
Dr. EBERSOLE. The information was that there had been a wound of exit there,
a tracheotomy and a suturing done."
From: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ebersole.htm
Now Livingston had a way of knowing things, called a telephone, but
his video said he told Humes that there was a bullet entrance near to the
tracheotomy. It was enough for Humes to figure out that they overlapped
once he saw the throat. However, here are the words also of Dr. Perry at
"Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations
with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital?
Dr. PERRY - Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - When did that conversation occur?
Dr. PERRY - My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in
doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but
I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have an independent recollection at this moment as to
whether it was on Friday or Saturday?
Dr. PERRY - No, sir; I have thought about it again and the events surrounding
that weekend were very kaleidoscopic, and I talked with Dr. Humes on two
occasions, separated by a very short interval of, I think it was, 30 minutes
or an hour or so, it could have been a little longer.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the medium of your conversation?
Dr. PERRY - Over the telephone.
Mr. SPECTER - Did he identify himself to you as Dr. Humes of Bethesda?
Dr. PERRY - He did.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you state as specifically as you can recollect the
conversation that you first had with him?
Dr. PERRY - He advised me that he could not discuss with me the findings of
necropsy, that he had a few questions he would like to clarify. The initial
phone call was in relation to my doing a tracheotomy. Since I had made the
incision directly through the wound in the neck, it made it difficult for
them to ascertain the exact nature of this wound. Of course, that did not
occur to me at the time."
Note that Perry's first impression was that he spoke with Humes Friday
night, but it sounds like someone told him it was Saturday later.
The third person was Nurse Audrey Bell, who heard the complaints of
DR. Perry, who aid he was getting calls from Humes at night. So that fits
with Perry's first impression.
Your problem is simple: if Humes knew the night of the autopsy that a
tracheotomy obscured the throat wound, why didn't he then reach the
conclusion he eventually *did* reach: that the bullet had exited the
throat.
Given that the back wound was an entrance (with an abrasion collar)
and no bullet was found in the torso, it was the obvious one.
*If* you knew about a wound in the throat.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
So to support the really odd circumstance of the SBT, you're willing
to throw away the 3 witnesses who corroborate each other. As to the lack
of a bullet from the torso, first, Humes had orders what to find and nor
find and what his Autopsy Report (AR) would say, and that had to include
removal of any bullets that may give away that other weapons besides
Oswald's MC rifle were used to kill JFK. The first step in the
clandestine work done on the body just after 6:35pm was X-rays to find
bullets. This is stated by the 2 X-ray Technicians.

Oddly enough though, One of the X-ray Technicians stated under oath,
the following:

""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

And then Custer made further statements about the same situation:

"Palamara: Were you aware of the allegations of—I don't know if it
was Admiral or Captain David Osborne—about the bullet falling out
of the body? During the autopsy? Did you see a whole bullet or a fragment
fall out of President Kennedy?
Custer: Well, I wouldn't call it a fragment, I'd say it was a pretty good
sized bullet. Because it created such a fuss. They ran over with a set of
forceps—and they grabbed it, picked it up and put it in a little
basin of water.
Law: Now is this the bullet—when you were doing the X-rays, and
you had him on the table and moving him around, didn't you tell me at some
point in an earlier conversation that a bullet fragment fell out of the
president?
Custer: This was the time that they found that.
Law: Okay. And what happened? What was their demeanor? What happened
when that bullet fragment fell out?
Custer: I called one of the pathologists over and said, "Hey, we have a
bullet here." Soon as they heard that, they came down off the raised
platform and they ran over and they picked it up. Then Sibert and O'Neill
also came over and said, "Well, we want that, that's—""
Palamara: Yes, they wrote out a receipt for a missile so people think it's
semantics— was it a fragment? So you're saying it wasn't a whole
bullet? It was a sizable fragment of a bullet?
Custer: It was about—see, you're getting in semantics here about
the size. It was distinguishable enough to know it was a bullet. It wasn't
complete because there was some fragmentation. Some area of destruction on
the bullet.
Law: Just for clarification, what area of the body did it fall out of?
Custer: That was the upper thorax. The upper back.
Law: It literally fell out of the back wound.
Custer: Right.
Law: Well now, the single-bullet theory would have you believe that the
bullet went in Kennedy's back, came out his throat, hit Connolly below the
right armpit,came out the right side of his chest, broke his right wrist,
and went into his left leg. So, if you're telling us that the bullet
fragment fell out of the back, that blows the single bullet theory to hell
right there.
Custer: Right.
Palamara: And also it was too low on the back to exit the neck.
Law: And you're absolutely certain that a bullet fragment fell out of the
back?
Custer: Absolutely.
Law: The back wound itself. No doubt about it.
Custer: Absolutely. Right. We lifted him up and boom. That's when it came
out.
Palamara: That's corroboration for David Osborne too.
Law: That would explain, "missile received" from Sibert and O'Neill.
Custer: Right.
Law: That's something that I've wanted to clear up."

"In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 132-133
online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf


I hope this helps. Law's book is straight Q and A with many of those
that were in the autopsy team, and he puts no spin on what they are
saying. He simply quotes them as they speak.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-29 01:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot
Try reading for comprehension next time. I stated that the autopsy team
suspected during the autopsy that the tracheostomy incision had been
performed over the bullet hole but that wasn't confirmed until the next
morning when Humes spoke directly to Perry. None of the witnesses you have
cited refutes that. Livingston did not claim to have told Humes that the
tracheostomy incision had been performed over the bullet hole because he
had no way of knowing that. You didn't quote Ebersole, you quoted Mantik
but even he doesn't tell us Humes spoke to Perry the night of the autopsy.
Bell did not say Humes and Perry spoke to each other on Friday night
either. Not only did you not comprehend what I wrote, you failed to
comprehend what the people you cited said either.
WRONG! I have Ebersole's words from his testimony. Looks like you
"Dr. EBERSOLE. Somewhere in the course of the evening Dr. Humes received
information from Dallas re the procedures that had been carried out there,
number one. Number two, somewhere in the course of the evening Dallas sent
to us the bony fragments you saw which were X rayed as to how this was
carried out. The mechanics I don't know. Somewhere in the course of the
autopsy Dr. Humes was made aware of the surgical procedures at Dallas
vis-a-vis the neck.
Mr. PURDY. And what was that information?
Dr. EBERSOLE. The information was that there had been a wound of exit there,
a tracheotomy and a suturing done."
From: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ebersole.htm
Now Livingston had a way of knowing things, called a telephone, but
his video said he told Humes that there was a bullet entrance near to the
tracheotomy. It was enough for Humes to figure out that they overlapped
once he saw the throat. However, here are the words also of Dr. Perry at
"Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations
with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital?
Dr. PERRY - Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - When did that conversation occur?
Dr. PERRY - My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in
doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but
I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have an independent recollection at this moment as to
whether it was on Friday or Saturday?
Dr. PERRY - No, sir; I have thought about it again and the events surrounding
that weekend were very kaleidoscopic, and I talked with Dr. Humes on two
occasions, separated by a very short interval of, I think it was, 30 minutes
or an hour or so, it could have been a little longer.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the medium of your conversation?
Dr. PERRY - Over the telephone.
Mr. SPECTER - Did he identify himself to you as Dr. Humes of Bethesda?
Dr. PERRY - He did.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you state as specifically as you can recollect the
conversation that you first had with him?
Dr. PERRY - He advised me that he could not discuss with me the findings of
necropsy, that he had a few questions he would like to clarify. The initial
phone call was in relation to my doing a tracheotomy. Since I had made the
incision directly through the wound in the neck, it made it difficult for
them to ascertain the exact nature of this wound. Of course, that did not
occur to me at the time."
Note that Perry's first impression was that he spoke with Humes Friday
night, but it sounds like someone told him it was Saturday later.
The third person was Nurse Audrey Bell, who heard the complaints of
DR. Perry, who aid he was getting calls from Humes at night. So that fits
with Perry's first impression.
Your problem is simple: if Humes knew the night of the autopsy that a
tracheotomy obscured the throat wound, why didn't he then reach the
conclusion he eventually *did* reach: that the bullet had exited the
throat.
Given that the back wound was an entrance (with an abrasion collar)
and no bullet was found in the torso, it was the obvious one.
*If* you knew about a wound in the throat.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
So to support the really odd circumstance of the SBT, you're willing
to throw away the 3 witnesses who corroborate each other. As to the lack
of a bullet from the torso, first, Humes had orders what to find and nor
find and what his Autopsy Report (AR) would say, and that had to include
removal of any bullets that may give away that other weapons besides
Oswald's MC rifle were used to kill JFK. The first step in the
clandestine work done on the body just after 6:35pm was X-rays to find
bullets. This is stated by the 2 X-ray Technicians.
Oddly enough though, One of the X-ray Technicians stated under oath,
""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
"Palamara: Were you aware of the allegations of—I don't know if it
was Admiral or Captain David Osborne—about the bullet falling out
of the body? During the autopsy? Did you see a whole bullet or a fragment
fall out of President Kennedy?
Custer: Well, I wouldn't call it a fragment, I'd say it was a pretty good
sized bullet. Because it created such a fuss. They ran over with a set of
forceps—and they grabbed it, picked it up and put it in a little
basin of water.
Law: Now is this the bullet—when you were doing the X-rays, and
you had him on the table and moving him around, didn't you tell me at some
point in an earlier conversation that a bullet fragment fell out of the
president?
Custer: This was the time that they found that.
Law: Okay. And what happened? What was their demeanor? What happened
when that bullet fragment fell out?
Custer: I called one of the pathologists over and said, "Hey, we have a
bullet here." Soon as they heard that, they came down off the raised
platform and they ran over and they picked it up. Then Sibert and O'Neill
also came over and said, "Well, we want that, that's—""
Palamara: Yes, they wrote out a receipt for a missile so people think it's
semantics— was it a fragment? So you're saying it wasn't a whole
bullet? It was a sizable fragment of a bullet?
Custer: It was about—see, you're getting in semantics here about
the size. It was distinguishable enough to know it was a bullet. It wasn't
complete because there was some fragmentation. Some area of destruction on
the bullet.
Law: Just for clarification, what area of the body did it fall out of?
Custer: That was the upper thorax. The upper back.
Law: It literally fell out of the back wound.
Custer: Right.
Law: Well now, the single-bullet theory would have you believe that the
bullet went in Kennedy's back, came out his throat, hit Connolly below the
right armpit,came out the right side of his chest, broke his right wrist,
and went into his left leg. So, if you're telling us that the bullet
fragment fell out of the back, that blows the single bullet theory to hell
right there.
Custer: Right.
Palamara: And also it was too low on the back to exit the neck.
Law: And you're absolutely certain that a bullet fragment fell out of the
back?
Custer: Absolutely.
Law: The back wound itself. No doubt about it.
Custer: Absolutely. Right. We lifted him up and boom. That's when it came
out.
Palamara: That's corroboration for David Osborne too.
Law: That would explain, "missile received" from Sibert and O'Neill.
Custer: Right.
Law: That's something that I've wanted to clear up."
"In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 132-133
online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
I hope this helps. Law's book is straight Q and A with many of those
that were in the autopsy team, and he puts no spin on what they are
saying. He simply quotes them as they speak.
Amazing you put more faith in this bizarre tale by Custer than you do in
what everyone else in the room plus the gallery said. We are supposed to
believe that with all those people in the room plus the observation
gallery that nobody else so this bullet fall out of the wound. It's
preposterous to think that a bullet would make such a shallow penetration
that it could simply fall out because a bullet so weak could have never
reached the target. That defies the laws of physics.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-30 15:07:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot
Try reading for comprehension next time. I stated that the autopsy team
suspected during the autopsy that the tracheostomy incision had been
performed over the bullet hole but that wasn't confirmed until the next
morning when Humes spoke directly to Perry. None of the witnesses you have
cited refutes that. Livingston did not claim to have told Humes that the
tracheostomy incision had been performed over the bullet hole because he
had no way of knowing that. You didn't quote Ebersole, you quoted Mantik
but even he doesn't tell us Humes spoke to Perry the night of the autopsy.
Bell did not say Humes and Perry spoke to each other on Friday night
either. Not only did you not comprehend what I wrote, you failed to
comprehend what the people you cited said either.
WRONG! I have Ebersole's words from his testimony. Looks like you
"Dr. EBERSOLE. Somewhere in the course of the evening Dr. Humes received
information from Dallas re the procedures that had been carried out there,
number one. Number two, somewhere in the course of the evening Dallas sent
to us the bony fragments you saw which were X rayed as to how this was
carried out. The mechanics I don't know. Somewhere in the course of the
autopsy Dr. Humes was made aware of the surgical procedures at Dallas
vis-a-vis the neck.
Mr. PURDY. And what was that information?
Dr. EBERSOLE. The information was that there had been a wound of exit there,
a tracheotomy and a suturing done."
From: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ebersole.htm
Now Livingston had a way of knowing things, called a telephone, but
his video said he told Humes that there was a bullet entrance near to the
tracheotomy. It was enough for Humes to figure out that they overlapped
once he saw the throat. However, here are the words also of Dr. Perry at
"Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations
with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital?
Dr. PERRY - Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - When did that conversation occur?
Dr. PERRY - My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in
doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but
I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have an independent recollection at this moment as to
whether it was on Friday or Saturday?
Dr. PERRY - No, sir; I have thought about it again and the events surrounding
that weekend were very kaleidoscopic, and I talked with Dr. Humes on two
occasions, separated by a very short interval of, I think it was, 30 minutes
or an hour or so, it could have been a little longer.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the medium of your conversation?
Dr. PERRY - Over the telephone.
Mr. SPECTER - Did he identify himself to you as Dr. Humes of Bethesda?
Dr. PERRY - He did.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you state as specifically as you can recollect the
conversation that you first had with him?
Dr. PERRY - He advised me that he could not discuss with me the findings of
necropsy, that he had a few questions he would like to clarify. The initial
phone call was in relation to my doing a tracheotomy. Since I had made the
incision directly through the wound in the neck, it made it difficult for
them to ascertain the exact nature of this wound. Of course, that did not
occur to me at the time."
Note that Perry's first impression was that he spoke with Humes Friday
night, but it sounds like someone told him it was Saturday later.
The third person was Nurse Audrey Bell, who heard the complaints of
DR. Perry, who aid he was getting calls from Humes at night. So that fits
with Perry's first impression.
Your problem is simple: if Humes knew the night of the autopsy that a
tracheotomy obscured the throat wound, why didn't he then reach the
conclusion he eventually *did* reach: that the bullet had exited the
throat.
Given that the back wound was an entrance (with an abrasion collar)
and no bullet was found in the torso, it was the obvious one.
*If* you knew about a wound in the throat.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
So to support the really odd circumstance of the SBT, you're willing
to throw away the 3 witnesses who corroborate each other. As to the lack
of a bullet from the torso, first, Humes had orders what to find and nor
find and what his Autopsy Report (AR) would say, and that had to include
removal of any bullets that may give away that other weapons besides
Oswald's MC rifle were used to kill JFK. The first step in the
clandestine work done on the body just after 6:35pm was X-rays to find
bullets. This is stated by the 2 X-ray Technicians.
Oddly enough though, One of the X-ray Technicians stated under oath,
""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
"Palamara: Were you aware of the allegations of???I don't know if it
was Admiral or Captain David Osborne???about the bullet falling out
of the body? During the autopsy? Did you see a whole bullet or a fragment
fall out of President Kennedy?
Custer: Well, I wouldn't call it a fragment, I'd say it was a pretty good
sized bullet. Because it created such a fuss. They ran over with a set of
forceps???and they grabbed it, picked it up and put it in a little
basin of water.
Law: Now is this the bullet???when you were doing the X-rays, and
you had him on the table and moving him around, didn't you tell me at some
point in an earlier conversation that a bullet fragment fell out of the
president?
Custer: This was the time that they found that.
Law: Okay. And what happened? What was their demeanor? What happened
when that bullet fragment fell out?
Custer: I called one of the pathologists over and said, "Hey, we have a
bullet here." Soon as they heard that, they came down off the raised
platform and they ran over and they picked it up. Then Sibert and O'Neill
also came over and said, "Well, we want that, that's???""
Palamara: Yes, they wrote out a receipt for a missile so people think it's
semantics??? was it a fragment? So you're saying it wasn't a whole
bullet? It was a sizable fragment of a bullet?
Custer: It was about???see, you're getting in semantics here about
the size. It was distinguishable enough to know it was a bullet. It wasn't
complete because there was some fragmentation. Some area of destruction on
the bullet.
Law: Just for clarification, what area of the body did it fall out of?
Custer: That was the upper thorax. The upper back.
Law: It literally fell out of the back wound.
Custer: Right.
Law: Well now, the single-bullet theory would have you believe that the
bullet went in Kennedy's back, came out his throat, hit Connolly below the
right armpit,came out the right side of his chest, broke his right wrist,
and went into his left leg. So, if you're telling us that the bullet
fragment fell out of the back, that blows the single bullet theory to hell
right there.
Custer: Right.
Palamara: And also it was too low on the back to exit the neck.
Law: And you're absolutely certain that a bullet fragment fell out of the
back?
Custer: Absolutely.
Law: The back wound itself. No doubt about it.
Custer: Absolutely. Right. We lifted him up and boom. That's when it came
out.
Palamara: That's corroboration for David Osborne too.
Law: That would explain, "missile received" from Sibert and O'Neill.
Custer: Right.
Law: That's something that I've wanted to clear up."
"In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 132-133
online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
I hope this helps. Law's book is straight Q and A with many of those
that were in the autopsy team, and he puts no spin on what they are
saying. He simply quotes them as they speak.
Amazing you put more faith in this bizarre tale by Custer than you do in
what everyone else in the room plus the gallery said. We are supposed to
believe that with all those people in the room plus the observation
gallery that nobody else so this bullet fall out of the wound. It's
preposterous to think that a bullet would make such a shallow penetration
that it could simply fall out because a bullet so weak could have never
reached the target. That defies the laws of physics.
Duh! And the laws of ballistics. A bullet that weak could never even
get out of the barrel. Who would ever make ammo like that? The CIA?
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-30 15:07:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot
Try reading for comprehension next time. I stated that the autopsy team
suspected during the autopsy that the tracheostomy incision had been
performed over the bullet hole but that wasn't confirmed until the next
morning when Humes spoke directly to Perry. None of the witnesses you have
cited refutes that. Livingston did not claim to have told Humes that the
tracheostomy incision had been performed over the bullet hole because he
had no way of knowing that. You didn't quote Ebersole, you quoted Mantik
but even he doesn't tell us Humes spoke to Perry the night of the autopsy.
Bell did not say Humes and Perry spoke to each other on Friday night
either. Not only did you not comprehend what I wrote, you failed to
comprehend what the people you cited said either.
WRONG! I have Ebersole's words from his testimony. Looks like you
"Dr. EBERSOLE. Somewhere in the course of the evening Dr. Humes received
information from Dallas re the procedures that had been carried out there,
number one. Number two, somewhere in the course of the evening Dallas sent
to us the bony fragments you saw which were X rayed as to how this was
carried out. The mechanics I don't know. Somewhere in the course of the
autopsy Dr. Humes was made aware of the surgical procedures at Dallas
vis-a-vis the neck.
Mr. PURDY. And what was that information?
Dr. EBERSOLE. The information was that there had been a wound of exit there,
a tracheotomy and a suturing done."
From: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ebersole.htm
Now Livingston had a way of knowing things, called a telephone, but
his video said he told Humes that there was a bullet entrance near to the
tracheotomy. It was enough for Humes to figure out that they overlapped
once he saw the throat. However, here are the words also of Dr. Perry at
"Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations
with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital?
Dr. PERRY - Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - When did that conversation occur?
Dr. PERRY - My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in
doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but
I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have an independent recollection at this moment as to
whether it was on Friday or Saturday?
Dr. PERRY - No, sir; I have thought about it again and the events surrounding
that weekend were very kaleidoscopic, and I talked with Dr. Humes on two
occasions, separated by a very short interval of, I think it was, 30 minutes
or an hour or so, it could have been a little longer.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the medium of your conversation?
Dr. PERRY - Over the telephone.
Mr. SPECTER - Did he identify himself to you as Dr. Humes of Bethesda?
Dr. PERRY - He did.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you state as specifically as you can recollect the
conversation that you first had with him?
Dr. PERRY - He advised me that he could not discuss with me the findings of
necropsy, that he had a few questions he would like to clarify. The initial
phone call was in relation to my doing a tracheotomy. Since I had made the
incision directly through the wound in the neck, it made it difficult for
them to ascertain the exact nature of this wound. Of course, that did not
occur to me at the time."
Note that Perry's first impression was that he spoke with Humes Friday
night, but it sounds like someone told him it was Saturday later.
The third person was Nurse Audrey Bell, who heard the complaints of
DR. Perry, who aid he was getting calls from Humes at night. So that fits
with Perry's first impression.
Your problem is simple: if Humes knew the night of the autopsy that a
tracheotomy obscured the throat wound, why didn't he then reach the
conclusion he eventually *did* reach: that the bullet had exited the
throat.
Given that the back wound was an entrance (with an abrasion collar)
and no bullet was found in the torso, it was the obvious one.
*If* you knew about a wound in the throat.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
So to support the really odd circumstance of the SBT, you're willing
to throw away the 3 witnesses who corroborate each other. As to the lack
of a bullet from the torso, first, Humes had orders what to find and nor
find and what his Autopsy Report (AR) would say, and that had to include
removal of any bullets that may give away that other weapons besides
Oswald's MC rifle were used to kill JFK. The first step in the
clandestine work done on the body just after 6:35pm was X-rays to find
bullets. This is stated by the 2 X-ray Technicians.
Oddly enough though, One of the X-ray Technicians stated under oath,
""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
"Palamara: Were you aware of the allegations of???I don't know if it
was Admiral or Captain David Osborne???about the bullet falling out
of the body? During the autopsy? Did you see a whole bullet or a fragment
fall out of President Kennedy?
Custer: Well, I wouldn't call it a fragment, I'd say it was a pretty good
sized bullet. Because it created such a fuss. They ran over with a set of
forceps???and they grabbed it, picked it up and put it in a little
basin of water.
Law: Now is this the bullet???when you were doing the X-rays, and
you had him on the table and moving him around, didn't you tell me at some
point in an earlier conversation that a bullet fragment fell out of the
president?
Custer: This was the time that they found that.
Law: Okay. And what happened? What was their demeanor? What happened
when that bullet fragment fell out?
Custer: I called one of the pathologists over and said, "Hey, we have a
bullet here." Soon as they heard that, they came down off the raised
platform and they ran over and they picked it up. Then Sibert and O'Neill
also came over and said, "Well, we want that, that's???""
Palamara: Yes, they wrote out a receipt for a missile so people think it's
semantics??? was it a fragment? So you're saying it wasn't a whole
bullet? It was a sizable fragment of a bullet?
Custer: It was about???see, you're getting in semantics here about
the size. It was distinguishable enough to know it was a bullet. It wasn't
complete because there was some fragmentation. Some area of destruction on
the bullet.
Law: Just for clarification, what area of the body did it fall out of?
Custer: That was the upper thorax. The upper back.
Law: It literally fell out of the back wound.
Custer: Right.
Law: Well now, the single-bullet theory would have you believe that the
bullet went in Kennedy's back, came out his throat, hit Connolly below the
right armpit,came out the right side of his chest, broke his right wrist,
and went into his left leg. So, if you're telling us that the bullet
fragment fell out of the back, that blows the single bullet theory to hell
right there.
Custer: Right.
Palamara: And also it was too low on the back to exit the neck.
Law: And you're absolutely certain that a bullet fragment fell out of the
back?
Custer: Absolutely.
Law: The back wound itself. No doubt about it.
Custer: Absolutely. Right. We lifted him up and boom. That's when it came
out.
Palamara: That's corroboration for David Osborne too.
Law: That would explain, "missile received" from Sibert and O'Neill.
Custer: Right.
Law: That's something that I've wanted to clear up."
"In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 132-133
online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
I hope this helps. Law's book is straight Q and A with many of those
that were in the autopsy team, and he puts no spin on what they are
saying. He simply quotes them as they speak.
Amazing you put more faith in this bizarre tale by Custer than you do in
what everyone else in the room plus the gallery said. We are supposed to
believe that with all those people in the room plus the observation
gallery that nobody else so this bullet fall out of the wound. It's
More bullshit. Another phony Argument by Authority.
Name every person in the observation gallery and post ALL their
statements and testimony.
Post by bigdog
preposterous to think that a bullet would make such a shallow penetration
that it could simply fall out because a bullet so weak could have never
reached the target. That defies the laws of physics.
Or even make it out of the barrel.
mainframetech
2018-07-31 01:20:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot
Try reading for comprehension next time. I stated that the autopsy team
suspected during the autopsy that the tracheostomy incision had been
performed over the bullet hole but that wasn't confirmed until the next
morning when Humes spoke directly to Perry. None of the witnesses you have
cited refutes that. Livingston did not claim to have told Humes that the
tracheostomy incision had been performed over the bullet hole because he
had no way of knowing that. You didn't quote Ebersole, you quoted Mantik
but even he doesn't tell us Humes spoke to Perry the night of the autopsy.
Bell did not say Humes and Perry spoke to each other on Friday night
either. Not only did you not comprehend what I wrote, you failed to
comprehend what the people you cited said either.
WRONG! I have Ebersole's words from his testimony. Looks like you
"Dr. EBERSOLE. Somewhere in the course of the evening Dr. Humes received
information from Dallas re the procedures that had been carried out there,
number one. Number two, somewhere in the course of the evening Dallas sent
to us the bony fragments you saw which were X rayed as to how this was
carried out. The mechanics I don't know. Somewhere in the course of the
autopsy Dr. Humes was made aware of the surgical procedures at Dallas
vis-a-vis the neck.
Mr. PURDY. And what was that information?
Dr. EBERSOLE. The information was that there had been a wound of exit there,
a tracheotomy and a suturing done."
From: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ebersole.htm
Now Livingston had a way of knowing things, called a telephone, but
his video said he told Humes that there was a bullet entrance near to the
tracheotomy. It was enough for Humes to figure out that they overlapped
once he saw the throat. However, here are the words also of Dr. Perry at
"Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations
with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital?
Dr. PERRY - Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - When did that conversation occur?
Dr. PERRY - My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in
doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but
I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have an independent recollection at this moment as to
whether it was on Friday or Saturday?
Dr. PERRY - No, sir; I have thought about it again and the events surrounding
that weekend were very kaleidoscopic, and I talked with Dr. Humes on two
occasions, separated by a very short interval of, I think it was, 30 minutes
or an hour or so, it could have been a little longer.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the medium of your conversation?
Dr. PERRY - Over the telephone.
Mr. SPECTER - Did he identify himself to you as Dr. Humes of Bethesda?
Dr. PERRY - He did.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you state as specifically as you can recollect the
conversation that you first had with him?
Dr. PERRY - He advised me that he could not discuss with me the findings of
necropsy, that he had a few questions he would like to clarify. The initial
phone call was in relation to my doing a tracheotomy. Since I had made the
incision directly through the wound in the neck, it made it difficult for
them to ascertain the exact nature of this wound. Of course, that did not
occur to me at the time."
Note that Perry's first impression was that he spoke with Humes Friday
night, but it sounds like someone told him it was Saturday later.
The third person was Nurse Audrey Bell, who heard the complaints of
DR. Perry, who aid he was getting calls from Humes at night. So that fits
with Perry's first impression.
Your problem is simple: if Humes knew the night of the autopsy that a
tracheotomy obscured the throat wound, why didn't he then reach the
conclusion he eventually *did* reach: that the bullet had exited the
throat.
Given that the back wound was an entrance (with an abrasion collar)
and no bullet was found in the torso, it was the obvious one.
*If* you knew about a wound in the throat.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
So to support the really odd circumstance of the SBT, you're willing
to throw away the 3 witnesses who corroborate each other. As to the lack
of a bullet from the torso, first, Humes had orders what to find and nor
find and what his Autopsy Report (AR) would say, and that had to include
removal of any bullets that may give away that other weapons besides
Oswald's MC rifle were used to kill JFK. The first step in the
clandestine work done on the body just after 6:35pm was X-rays to find
bullets. This is stated by the 2 X-ray Technicians.
Oddly enough though, One of the X-ray Technicians stated under oath,
""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
"Palamara: Were you aware of the allegations of—I don't know if it
was Admiral or Captain David Osborne—about the bullet falling out
of the body? During the autopsy? Did you see a whole bullet or a fragment
fall out of President Kennedy?
Custer: Well, I wouldn't call it a fragment, I'd say it was a pretty good
sized bullet. Because it created such a fuss. They ran over with a set of
forceps—and they grabbed it, picked it up and put it in a little
basin of water.
Law: Now is this the bullet—when you were doing the X-rays, and
you had him on the table and moving him around, didn't you tell me at some
point in an earlier conversation that a bullet fragment fell out of the
president?
Custer: This was the time that they found that.
Law: Okay. And what happened? What was their demeanor? What happened
when that bullet fragment fell out?
Custer: I called one of the pathologists over and said, "Hey, we have a
bullet here." Soon as they heard that, they came down off the raised
platform and they ran over and they picked it up. Then Sibert and O'Neill
also came over and said, "Well, we want that, that's—""
Palamara: Yes, they wrote out a receipt for a missile so people think it's
semantics— was it a fragment? So you're saying it wasn't a whole
bullet? It was a sizable fragment of a bullet?
Custer: It was about—see, you're getting in semantics here about
the size. It was distinguishable enough to know it was a bullet. It wasn't
complete because there was some fragmentation. Some area of destruction on
the bullet.
Law: Just for clarification, what area of the body did it fall out of?
Custer: That was the upper thorax. The upper back.
Law: It literally fell out of the back wound.
Custer: Right.
Law: Well now, the single-bullet theory would have you believe that the
bullet went in Kennedy's back, came out his throat, hit Connolly below the
right armpit,came out the right side of his chest, broke his right wrist,
and went into his left leg. So, if you're telling us that the bullet
fragment fell out of the back, that blows the single bullet theory to hell
right there.
Custer: Right.
Palamara: And also it was too low on the back to exit the neck.
Law: And you're absolutely certain that a bullet fragment fell out of the
back?
Custer: Absolutely.
Law: The back wound itself. No doubt about it.
Custer: Absolutely. Right. We lifted him up and boom. That's when it came
out.
Palamara: That's corroboration for David Osborne too.
Law: That would explain, "missile received" from Sibert and O'Neill.
Custer: Right.
Law: That's something that I've wanted to clear up."
"In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 132-133
online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
I hope this helps. Law's book is straight Q and A with many of those
that were in the autopsy team, and he puts no spin on what they are
saying. He simply quotes them as they speak.
Amazing you put more faith in this bizarre tale by Custer than you do in
what everyone else in the room plus the gallery said. We are supposed to
believe that with all those people in the room plus the observation
gallery that nobody else so this bullet fall out of the wound. It's
preposterous to think that a bullet would make such a shallow penetration
that it could simply fall out because a bullet so weak could have never
reached the target. That defies the laws of physics.
Whether something else was holding people's attention or not we don't
know. But Custer spoke under oath. And he had no reason to make up such
a story. Custer said he had to call attention to the bullet, so the
others may indeed have been doing something else. The disappearing of the
bullet fits with the orders that Humes and the other prosectors must have
gotten before hand to remove bullets, and modify the body as much as time
allowed.

Chris
David Von Pein
2018-07-28 20:04:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot
Try reading for comprehension next time. I stated that the autopsy team
suspected during the autopsy that the tracheostomy incision had been
performed over the bullet hole but that wasn't confirmed until the next
morning when Humes spoke directly to Perry. None of the witnesses you have
cited refutes that. Livingston did not claim to have told Humes that the
tracheostomy incision had been performed over the bullet hole because he
had no way of knowing that. You didn't quote Ebersole, you quoted Mantik
but even he doesn't tell us Humes spoke to Perry the night of the autopsy.
Bell did not say Humes and Perry spoke to each other on Friday night
either. Not only did you not comprehend what I wrote, you failed to
comprehend what the people you cited said either.
WRONG! I have Ebersole's words from his testimony. Looks like you
"Dr. EBERSOLE. Somewhere in the course of the evening Dr. Humes received
information from Dallas re the procedures that had been carried out there,
number one. Number two, somewhere in the course of the evening Dallas sent
to us the bony fragments you saw which were X rayed as to how this was
carried out. The mechanics I don't know. Somewhere in the course of the
autopsy Dr. Humes was made aware of the surgical procedures at Dallas
vis-a-vis the neck.
Mr. PURDY. And what was that information?
Dr. EBERSOLE. The information was that there had been a wound of exit there,
a tracheotomy and a suturing done."
From: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ebersole.htm
Now Livingston had a way of knowing things, called a telephone, but
his video said he told Humes that there was a bullet entrance near to the
tracheotomy. It was enough for Humes to figure out that they overlapped
once he saw the throat. However, here are the words also of Dr. Perry at
"Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations
with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital?
Dr. PERRY - Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - When did that conversation occur?
Dr. PERRY - My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in
doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but
I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have an independent recollection at this moment as to
whether it was on Friday or Saturday?
Dr. PERRY - No, sir; I have thought about it again and the events surrounding
that weekend were very kaleidoscopic, and I talked with Dr. Humes on two
occasions, separated by a very short interval of, I think it was, 30 minutes
or an hour or so, it could have been a little longer.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the medium of your conversation?
Dr. PERRY - Over the telephone.
Mr. SPECTER - Did he identify himself to you as Dr. Humes of Bethesda?
Dr. PERRY - He did.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you state as specifically as you can recollect the
conversation that you first had with him?
Dr. PERRY - He advised me that he could not discuss with me the findings of
necropsy, that he had a few questions he would like to clarify. The initial
phone call was in relation to my doing a tracheotomy. Since I had made the
incision directly through the wound in the neck, it made it difficult for
them to ascertain the exact nature of this wound. Of course, that did not
occur to me at the time."
Note that Perry's first impression was that he spoke with Humes Friday
night, but it sounds like someone told him it was Saturday later.
The third person was Nurse Audrey Bell, who heard the complaints of
DR. Perry, who aid he was getting calls from Humes at night. So that fits
with Perry's first impression.
Your problem is simple: if Humes knew the night of the autopsy that a
tracheotomy obscured the throat wound, why didn't he then reach the
conclusion he eventually *did* reach: that the bullet had exited the
throat.
Given that the back wound was an entrance (with an abrasion collar)
and no bullet was found in the torso, it was the obvious one.
*If* you knew about a wound in the throat.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Everything Dr. Humes did during the autopsy on 11/22/63 at Bethesda, while
President Kennedy's body was lying on the autopsy table, indicates that
Dr. Humes did NOT positively know that there was a bullet hole in JFK's
throat.

And we don't have to take *just* Dr. Humes' word for this. We also have
the Sibert/O'Neill report to guide us, too. In that report written by FBI
agents James Sibert and Francis O'Neill on November 22, 1963 (and dictated
on November 26, 1963) [ARRB MD 44], it states the following on Page 4:

"Inasmuch as no complete bullet of any size could be located in the brain
area and likewise no bullet could be located in the back or any other area
of the body as determined by total body X-Rays and inspection revealing
there was no point of exit, the individuals performing the autopsy were at
a loss to explain why they could find no bullets."

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md44/html/Image4.htm

Therefore, via the above excerpt that comes from the report written by FBI
agents Sibert and O'Neill, it's quite clear that the autopsy doctors
(including James J. Humes) were not fully aware during the course of the
autopsy of the existence of the bullet hole in the lower part of President
Kennedy's throat.

In addition, the Sibert/O'Neill report also states on Page 3 that
President Kennedy's body had undergone "surgery of the head area". And we
know from later interviews with James Sibert that the "surgery of the head
area" remark had come straight from the mouth of Dr. James Humes himself.

Now, I ask this: If Dr. Humes had been part of a covert plot to secretly
alter John F. Kennedy's head wounds (and according to Douglas P. Horne,
Humes DID alter the President's head wounds), then why on Earth would
Humes have uttered aloud that there had been apparent "surgery of the head
area"? It makes no sense.

David Von Pein
June 17, 2015

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-958.html
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-29 22:10:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Von Pein
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot
Try reading for comprehension next time. I stated that the autopsy team
suspected during the autopsy that the tracheostomy incision had been
performed over the bullet hole but that wasn't confirmed until the next
morning when Humes spoke directly to Perry. None of the witnesses you have
cited refutes that. Livingston did not claim to have told Humes that the
tracheostomy incision had been performed over the bullet hole because he
had no way of knowing that. You didn't quote Ebersole, you quoted Mantik
but even he doesn't tell us Humes spoke to Perry the night of the autopsy.
Bell did not say Humes and Perry spoke to each other on Friday night
either. Not only did you not comprehend what I wrote, you failed to
comprehend what the people you cited said either.
WRONG! I have Ebersole's words from his testimony. Looks like you
"Dr. EBERSOLE. Somewhere in the course of the evening Dr. Humes received
information from Dallas re the procedures that had been carried out there,
number one. Number two, somewhere in the course of the evening Dallas sent
to us the bony fragments you saw which were X rayed as to how this was
carried out. The mechanics I don't know. Somewhere in the course of the
autopsy Dr. Humes was made aware of the surgical procedures at Dallas
vis-a-vis the neck.
Mr. PURDY. And what was that information?
Dr. EBERSOLE. The information was that there had been a wound of exit there,
a tracheotomy and a suturing done."
From: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ebersole.htm
Now Livingston had a way of knowing things, called a telephone, but
his video said he told Humes that there was a bullet entrance near to the
tracheotomy. It was enough for Humes to figure out that they overlapped
once he saw the throat. However, here are the words also of Dr. Perry at
"Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations
with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital?
Dr. PERRY - Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - When did that conversation occur?
Dr. PERRY - My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in
doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but
I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have an independent recollection at this moment as to
whether it was on Friday or Saturday?
Dr. PERRY - No, sir; I have thought about it again and the events surrounding
that weekend were very kaleidoscopic, and I talked with Dr. Humes on two
occasions, separated by a very short interval of, I think it was, 30 minutes
or an hour or so, it could have been a little longer.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the medium of your conversation?
Dr. PERRY - Over the telephone.
Mr. SPECTER - Did he identify himself to you as Dr. Humes of Bethesda?
Dr. PERRY - He did.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you state as specifically as you can recollect the
conversation that you first had with him?
Dr. PERRY - He advised me that he could not discuss with me the findings of
necropsy, that he had a few questions he would like to clarify. The initial
phone call was in relation to my doing a tracheotomy. Since I had made the
incision directly through the wound in the neck, it made it difficult for
them to ascertain the exact nature of this wound. Of course, that did not
occur to me at the time."
Note that Perry's first impression was that he spoke with Humes Friday
night, but it sounds like someone told him it was Saturday later.
The third person was Nurse Audrey Bell, who heard the complaints of
DR. Perry, who aid he was getting calls from Humes at night. So that fits
with Perry's first impression.
Your problem is simple: if Humes knew the night of the autopsy that a
tracheotomy obscured the throat wound, why didn't he then reach the
conclusion he eventually *did* reach: that the bullet had exited the
throat.
Given that the back wound was an entrance (with an abrasion collar)
and no bullet was found in the torso, it was the obvious one.
*If* you knew about a wound in the throat.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Everything Dr. Humes did during the autopsy on 11/22/63 at Bethesda, while
President Kennedy's body was lying on the autopsy table, indicates that
Dr. Humes did NOT positively know that there was a bullet hole in JFK's
throat.
And we don't have to take *just* Dr. Humes' word for this. We also have
the Sibert/O'Neill report to guide us, too. In that report written by FBI
agents James Sibert and Francis O'Neill on November 22, 1963 (and dictated
"Inasmuch as no complete bullet of any size could be located in the brain
area and likewise no bullet could be located in the back or any other area
of the body as determined by total body X-Rays and inspection revealing
there was no point of exit, the individuals performing the autopsy were at
a loss to explain why they could find no bullets."
Because the were incompetent. So Humes GUESSED it might have been an ICE
BULLET. In a legal autopsy you don't just guess. You examine. Autopsy
means to SEE.

To be fair to Humes he also knew nothing about bullets. It might be avery
low velocity bullet which just falls out.
Post by David Von Pein
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md44/html/Image4.htm
Therefore, via the above excerpt that comes from the report written by FBI
agents Sibert and O'Neill, it's quite clear that the autopsy doctors
(including James J. Humes) were not fully aware during the course of the
autopsy of the existence of the bullet hole in the lower part of President
Kennedy's throat.
Well, and the fact they they wee unqualified to examine the X-rays so
they didn't see the hairline fracture of T-1 which might show that a
bullet grazed it and its path would be deflected.
Post by David Von Pein
In addition, the Sibert/O'Neill report also states on Page 3 that
President Kennedy's body had undergone "surgery of the head area". And we
No. It just appeared that way to Humes because of the gauze suares left
in the head wound.

Stop changing words in official documents. Don't try to be a mainframe
tech.
Post by David Von Pein
know from later interviews with James Sibert that the "surgery of the head
area" remark had come straight from the mouth of Dr. James Humes himself.
Now, I ask this: If Dr. Humes had been part of a covert plot to secretly
alter John F. Kennedy's head wounds (and according to Douglas P. Horne,
Humes DID alter the President's head wounds), then why on Earth would
Humes have uttered aloud that there had been apparent "surgery of the head
area"? It makes no sense.
That makes too much sense. Like if Trump were guilty of collusion, Putin
would not be stupid ebough to admit it on live TV that he had helped
Trump's campaign. Especially not on live TV where they can't snip it out
before broadcast. Oh snap, that's just what they did.

But to your point, Humes did not do any pre-autopsy surgery. Not enough
time and he was too stupid to know what to do.
Post by David Von Pein
David Von Pein
June 17, 2015
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-958.html
mainframetech
2018-07-31 01:22:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Von Pein
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot
Try reading for comprehension next time. I stated that the autopsy team
suspected during the autopsy that the tracheostomy incision had been
performed over the bullet hole but that wasn't confirmed until the next
morning when Humes spoke directly to Perry. None of the witnesses you have
cited refutes that. Livingston did not claim to have told Humes that the
tracheostomy incision had been performed over the bullet hole because he
had no way of knowing that. You didn't quote Ebersole, you quoted Mantik
but even he doesn't tell us Humes spoke to Perry the night of the autopsy.
Bell did not say Humes and Perry spoke to each other on Friday night
either. Not only did you not comprehend what I wrote, you failed to
comprehend what the people you cited said either.
WRONG! I have Ebersole's words from his testimony. Looks like you
"Dr. EBERSOLE. Somewhere in the course of the evening Dr. Humes received
information from Dallas re the procedures that had been carried out there,
number one. Number two, somewhere in the course of the evening Dallas sent
to us the bony fragments you saw which were X rayed as to how this was
carried out. The mechanics I don't know. Somewhere in the course of the
autopsy Dr. Humes was made aware of the surgical procedures at Dallas
vis-a-vis the neck.
Mr. PURDY. And what was that information?
Dr. EBERSOLE. The information was that there had been a wound of exit there,
a tracheotomy and a suturing done."
From: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ebersole.htm
Now Livingston had a way of knowing things, called a telephone, but
his video said he told Humes that there was a bullet entrance near to the
tracheotomy. It was enough for Humes to figure out that they overlapped
once he saw the throat. However, here are the words also of Dr. Perry at
"Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations
with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital?
Dr. PERRY - Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - When did that conversation occur?
Dr. PERRY - My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in
doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but
I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have an independent recollection at this moment as to
whether it was on Friday or Saturday?
Dr. PERRY - No, sir; I have thought about it again and the events surrounding
that weekend were very kaleidoscopic, and I talked with Dr. Humes on two
occasions, separated by a very short interval of, I think it was, 30 minutes
or an hour or so, it could have been a little longer.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the medium of your conversation?
Dr. PERRY - Over the telephone.
Mr. SPECTER - Did he identify himself to you as Dr. Humes of Bethesda?
Dr. PERRY - He did.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you state as specifically as you can recollect the
conversation that you first had with him?
Dr. PERRY - He advised me that he could not discuss with me the findings of
necropsy, that he had a few questions he would like to clarify. The initial
phone call was in relation to my doing a tracheotomy. Since I had made the
incision directly through the wound in the neck, it made it difficult for
them to ascertain the exact nature of this wound. Of course, that did not
occur to me at the time."
Note that Perry's first impression was that he spoke with Humes Friday
night, but it sounds like someone told him it was Saturday later.
The third person was Nurse Audrey Bell, who heard the complaints of
DR. Perry, who aid he was getting calls from Humes at night. So that fits
with Perry's first impression.
Your problem is simple: if Humes knew the night of the autopsy that a
tracheotomy obscured the throat wound, why didn't he then reach the
conclusion he eventually *did* reach: that the bullet had exited the
throat.
Given that the back wound was an entrance (with an abrasion collar)
and no bullet was found in the torso, it was the obvious one.
*If* you knew about a wound in the throat.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Everything Dr. Humes did during the autopsy on 11/22/63 at Bethesda, while
President Kennedy's body was lying on the autopsy table, indicates that
Dr. Humes did NOT positively know that there was a bullet hole in JFK's
throat.
And yet we have 3 witnesses that he DID know. One of whom was on the
autopsy team (Ebersole).
Post by David Von Pein
And we don't have to take *just* Dr. Humes' word for this. We also have
the Sibert/O'Neill report to guide us, too. In that report written by FBI
agents James Sibert and Francis O'Neill on November 22, 1963 (and dictated
"Inasmuch as no complete bullet of any size could be located in the brain
area and likewise no bullet could be located in the back or any other area
of the body as determined by total body X-Rays and inspection revealing
there was no point of exit, the individuals performing the autopsy were at
a loss to explain why they could find no bullets."
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md44/html/Image4.htm
Therefore, via the above excerpt that comes from the report written by FBI
agents Sibert and O'Neill, it's quite clear that the autopsy doctors
(including James J. Humes) were not fully aware during the course of the
autopsy of the existence of the bullet hole in the lower part of President
Kennedy's throat.
The Sibert and O'Neill report doesn't say anything about whether a
back wound was known to them or not. It says bullets were not found,
which does NOT say there was no info about a tracheotomy overlaying a
bullet wound. DVP may have gone astray here.
Post by David Von Pein
In addition, the Sibert/O'Neill report also states on Page 3 that
President Kennedy's body had undergone "surgery of the head area". And we
know from later interviews with James Sibert that the "surgery of the head
area" remark had come straight from the mouth of Dr. James Humes himself.
Now, I ask this: If Dr. Humes had been part of a covert plot to secretly
alter John F. Kennedy's head wounds (and according to Douglas P. Horne,
Humes DID alter the President's head wounds), then why on Earth would
Humes have uttered aloud that there had been apparent "surgery of the head
area"? It makes no sense.
Of course it made no sense to DVP, but it could make sense if Humes
was trying to cover up his own work on the skull. He was seen using a
bone saw by at least 2 eyewitnesses Tom Robinson the mortician, and Edward
Reed, X-ray Technician. They saw him removing the brain, which should
have been done at the scheduled autopsy at 8:00pm. Instead they were
doing it at just after 6:35pm when the body arrived.

I believe from much other evidence, that they had orders to remove all
bullets and fragments of any kind, so as to remove the possibility of them
finding a bullet later that said a different than the MC rifle fired at
the target.

For further cover up, Humes also took out the brain at the scheduled
autopsy, and because it was so easy, he humorously commented that "it
practically fell out into my hands". That was a bad attempt to make it
look like it was a surprise to him, when earlier HE had ben the one to
take out the brain. At the scheduled autopsy, it was easy to take it out
because the spinal cord had been cut and the optic nerves and some of the
major arteries as well. All those had to be cut to remove the brain.

Chris
Ace Kefford
2018-07-31 01:31:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot
Try reading for comprehension next time. I stated that the autopsy team
suspected during the autopsy that the tracheostomy incision had been
performed over the bullet hole but that wasn't confirmed until the next
morning when Humes spoke directly to Perry. None of the witnesses you have
cited refutes that. Livingston did not claim to have told Humes that the
tracheostomy incision had been performed over the bullet hole because he
had no way of knowing that. You didn't quote Ebersole, you quoted Mantik
but even he doesn't tell us Humes spoke to Perry the night of the autopsy.
Bell did not say Humes and Perry spoke to each other on Friday night
either. Not only did you not comprehend what I wrote, you failed to
comprehend what the people you cited said either.
WRONG! I have Ebersole's words from his testimony. Looks like you
"Dr. EBERSOLE. Somewhere in the course of the evening Dr. Humes received
information from Dallas re the procedures that had been carried out there,
number one. Number two, somewhere in the course of the evening Dallas sent
to us the bony fragments you saw which were X rayed as to how this was
carried out. The mechanics I don't know. Somewhere in the course of the
autopsy Dr. Humes was made aware of the surgical procedures at Dallas
vis-a-vis the neck.
Mr. PURDY. And what was that information?
Dr. EBERSOLE. The information was that there had been a wound of exit there,
a tracheotomy and a suturing done."
From: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ebersole.htm
Now Livingston had a way of knowing things, called a telephone, but
his video said he told Humes that there was a bullet entrance near to the
tracheotomy. It was enough for Humes to figure out that they overlapped
once he saw the throat. However, here are the words also of Dr. Perry at
"Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations
with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital?
Dr. PERRY - Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - When did that conversation occur?
Dr. PERRY - My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in
doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but
I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have an independent recollection at this moment as to
whether it was on Friday or Saturday?
Dr. PERRY - No, sir; I have thought about it again and the events surrounding
that weekend were very kaleidoscopic, and I talked with Dr. Humes on two
occasions, separated by a very short interval of, I think it was, 30 minutes
or an hour or so, it could have been a little longer.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the medium of your conversation?
Dr. PERRY - Over the telephone.
Mr. SPECTER - Did he identify himself to you as Dr. Humes of Bethesda?
Dr. PERRY - He did.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you state as specifically as you can recollect the
conversation that you first had with him?
Dr. PERRY - He advised me that he could not discuss with me the findings of
necropsy, that he had a few questions he would like to clarify. The initial
phone call was in relation to my doing a tracheotomy. Since I had made the
incision directly through the wound in the neck, it made it difficult for
them to ascertain the exact nature of this wound. Of course, that did not
occur to me at the time."
Note that Perry's first impression was that he spoke with Humes Friday
night, but it sounds like someone told him it was Saturday later.
The third person was Nurse Audrey Bell, who heard the complaints of
DR. Perry, who aid he was getting calls from Humes at night. So that fits
with Perry's first impression.
Your problem is simple: if Humes knew the night of the autopsy that a
tracheotomy obscured the throat wound, why didn't he then reach the
conclusion he eventually *did* reach: that the bullet had exited the
throat.
Given that the back wound was an entrance (with an abrasion collar)
and no bullet was found in the torso, it was the obvious one.
*If* you knew about a wound in the throat.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John, don't befuddle 'em with yer logik.

The buffs don't seem to realize that if Humes was positive on the front
throat exit that night, then it makes no sense that he would have
suppressed that. Although I'm sure the buffs have their backflipping,
multi-level, geometric logic explanation, no doubt requiring conspirators
and blackmailed folks in the dozens at least and fully malleable evidence.

In buff world, heads I win, tails you lose.
bigdog
2018-07-27 21:10:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot
Post by bigdog
The autopsy team suspected by the time the autopsy was completed that a
tracheostomy had been performed over the exit wound which is why they
originally didn't think there had been one. Humes wanted to verify that
with Dr. Perry directly and that conversation took place the following
morning. There had been conversations between Parkland and Bethesda during
the autopsy but Saturday morning is when Humes spoke directly to Perry.
You can't cite a single witness who said Humes spoke directly to Perry the
previous night.
WRONG as usual! Your lack of knowledge about this case leads you
into trouble often. Here are 3 witnesses proving that Humes knew the day
of the murder that a tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound in the
throat.
1. Dr. Livingston - http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
2. Dr. Ebersole
"After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole,
MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, “Ebersole had told me
during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound
from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he
had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy
– that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that
intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound –
corresponding to the back entrance wound – was
solved.”[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two
hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm
3. Nurse Audrey Bell -
"Given permission, she continues, “Saturday morning when I got
over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of
course he had been primary until Dr. Clark came … He sat down in a
chair. I said, ‘You look awful. Did you get any sleep last
night?’ And he said, ‘Well, not too much between the calls
from Bethesda that came in during the night.’ I said,
‘What about?’ He said, ‘Oh. Whether that was an
entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat.’ He said,
‘They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance
wound.’” [31] Nurse Bell clarifies that her exchange with
Dr. Perry occurred in the morning, before he decamped just after the
Saturday press conference, during which he was silent after telling Dr.
Kemp Clark what Humes had told him, and asking Clark to take over for him
to avoid having to lie at the Saturday afternoon press conference. Chalk
up another perjury for Humes, who testified that he did not discuss the
results of the autopsy with Dr. Perry. [32] The frosting on the cover-up
cake may now be tasted. Perry talked to Humes on Friday and told him that
the throat wound was an entrance wound, as did Dr. Livingston, and almost
certainly others."
From: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html
Humes knew about the tracheostomy during the autopsy. Try and get it
right next time.
Try reading for comprehension next time. I stated that the autopsy team
suspected during the autopsy that the tracheostomy incision had been
performed over the bullet hole but that wasn't confirmed until the next
morning when Humes spoke directly to Perry. None of the witnesses you have
cited refutes that. Livingston did not claim to have told Humes that the
tracheostomy incision had been performed over the bullet hole because he
had no way of knowing that. You didn't quote Ebersole, you quoted Mantik
but even he doesn't tell us Humes spoke to Perry the night of the autopsy.
Bell did not say Humes and Perry spoke to each other on Friday night
either. Not only did you not comprehend what I wrote, you failed to
comprehend what the people you cited said either.
WRONG! I have Ebersole's words from his testimony. Looks like you
"Dr. EBERSOLE. Somewhere in the course of the evening Dr. Humes received
information from Dallas re the procedures that had been carried out there,
number one. Number two, somewhere in the course of the evening Dallas sent
to us the bony fragments you saw which were X rayed as to how this was
carried out. The mechanics I don't know. Somewhere in the course of the
autopsy Dr. Humes was made aware of the surgical procedures at Dallas
vis-a-vis the neck.
Mr. PURDY. And what was that information?
Dr. EBERSOLE. The information was that there had been a wound of exit there,
a tracheotomy and a suturing done."
From: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ebersole.htm
You are quoting Ebersole here. You quoted Mantik in your previous post,
not Ebersole. In neither version does Ebersole say Humes spoke to Perry on
Friday night. Nobody has said that.
Post by mainframetech
Now Livingston had a way of knowing things, called a telephone,
Do you have any evidence Livingston spoke by phone to anybody at Parkland?
Didn't think so. Why would just assume such a conversation took place? Oh,
that's right. You need that to be true for you theories to hold water.
Post by mainframetech
but
his video said he told Humes that there was a bullet entrance near to the
tracheotomy. It was enough for Humes to figure out that they overlapped
once he saw the throat. However, here are the words also of Dr. Perry at
"Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations
with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital?
Dr. PERRY - Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - When did that conversation occur?
Dr. PERRY - My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in
doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but
I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have an independent recollection at this moment as to
whether it was on Friday or Saturday?
Dr. PERRY - No, sir; I have thought about it again and the events surrounding
that weekend were very kaleidoscopic, and I talked with Dr. Humes on two
occasions, separated by a very short interval of, I think it was, 30 minutes
or an hour or so, it could have been a little longer.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the medium of your conversation?
Dr. PERRY - Over the telephone.
Mr. SPECTER - Did he identify himself to you as Dr. Humes of Bethesda?
Dr. PERRY - He did.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you state as specifically as you can recollect the
conversation that you first had with him?
Dr. PERRY - He advised me that he could not discuss with me the findings of
necropsy, that he had a few questions he would like to clarify. The initial
phone call was in relation to my doing a tracheotomy. Since I had made the
incision directly through the wound in the neck, it made it difficult for
them to ascertain the exact nature of this wound. Of course, that did not
occur to me at the time."
Note that Perry's first impression was that he spoke with Humes Friday
night, but it sounds like someone told him it was Saturday later.
If Perry had a clear recollection of speaking to Humes on Friday night, he
wouldn't have needed anyone to tell him when that conversation occurred. I
have no doubt that Perry spoke to someone at Bethesda on Friday night but
there is no testimony from anyone that it was Humes he spoke to. Whomever
he spoke to, that would have been to confirm what the autopsy team already
suspected when the traced the track of the tissue damage from the back
wound to the trachea, that a tracheostomy had obliterated the exit wound.
That solved the puzzle for why they had an entrance wound with no apparent
exit and no bullet in the body. Once Perry confirmed what they already
suspected, they had their exit wound.
Post by mainframetech
The third person was Nurse Audrey Bell, who heard the complaints of
DR. Perry, who aid he was getting calls from Humes at night. So that fits
with Perry's first impression.
Why do you keep twisting the words of the witnesses you cite. Audrey Bell
did NOT say Perry told her he talked to Humes the night before. He told
her he had talked to someone at Bethesda. Her testimony does not indicate
that someone was Humes. That was your insertion to misrepresent what Bell
actually said. Why do you continually have to modify what witnesses have
said to try to make your theories hold water?
mainframetech
2018-07-29 18:13:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot
Post by bigdog
The autopsy team suspected by the time the autopsy was completed that a
tracheostomy had been performed over the exit wound which is why they
originally didn't think there had been one. Humes wanted to verify that
with Dr. Perry directly and that conversation took place the following
morning. There had been conversations between Parkland and Bethesda during
the autopsy but Saturday morning is when Humes spoke directly to Perry.
You can't cite a single witness who said Humes spoke directly to Perry the
previous night.
WRONG as usual! Your lack of knowledge about this case leads you
into trouble often. Here are 3 witnesses proving that Humes knew the day
of the murder that a tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound in the
throat.
1. Dr. Livingston - http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
2. Dr. Ebersole
"After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole,
MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, “Ebersole had told me
during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound
from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he
had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy
– that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that
intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound –
corresponding to the back entrance wound – was
solved.”[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two
hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm
3. Nurse Audrey Bell -
"Given permission, she continues, “Saturday morning when I got
over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of
course he had been primary until Dr. Clark came … He sat down in a
chair. I said, ‘You look awful. Did you get any sleep last
night?’ And he said, ‘Well, not too much between the calls
from Bethesda that came in during the night.’ I said,
‘What about?’ He said, ‘Oh. Whether that was an
entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat.’ He said,
‘They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance
wound.’” [31] Nurse Bell clarifies that her exchange with
Dr. Perry occurred in the morning, before he decamped just after the
Saturday press conference, during which he was silent after telling Dr.
Kemp Clark what Humes had told him, and asking Clark to take over for him
to avoid having to lie at the Saturday afternoon press conference. Chalk
up another perjury for Humes, who testified that he did not discuss the
results of the autopsy with Dr. Perry. [32] The frosting on the cover-up
cake may now be tasted. Perry talked to Humes on Friday and told him that
the throat wound was an entrance wound, as did Dr. Livingston, and almost
certainly others."
From: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html
Humes knew about the tracheostomy during the autopsy. Try and get it
right next time.
Try reading for comprehension next time. I stated that the autopsy team
suspected during the autopsy that the tracheostomy incision had been
performed over the bullet hole but that wasn't confirmed until the next
morning when Humes spoke directly to Perry. None of the witnesses you have
cited refutes that. Livingston did not claim to have told Humes that the
tracheostomy incision had been performed over the bullet hole because he
had no way of knowing that. You didn't quote Ebersole, you quoted Mantik
but even he doesn't tell us Humes spoke to Perry the night of the autopsy.
Bell did not say Humes and Perry spoke to each other on Friday night
either. Not only did you not comprehend what I wrote, you failed to
comprehend what the people you cited said either.
WRONG! I have Ebersole's words from his testimony. Looks like you
"Dr. EBERSOLE. Somewhere in the course of the evening Dr. Humes received
information from Dallas re the procedures that had been carried out there,
number one. Number two, somewhere in the course of the evening Dallas sent
to us the bony fragments you saw which were X rayed as to how this was
carried out. The mechanics I don't know. Somewhere in the course of the
autopsy Dr. Humes was made aware of the surgical procedures at Dallas
vis-a-vis the neck.
Mr. PURDY. And what was that information?
Dr. EBERSOLE. The information was that there had been a wound of exit there,
a tracheotomy and a suturing done."
From: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ebersole.htm
You are quoting Ebersole here. You quoted Mantik in your previous post,
not Ebersole. In neither version does Ebersole say Humes spoke to Perry on
Friday night. Nobody has said that.
Pick, pick, pick. You'll never get it that way. You need to apply
your brain.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Now Livingston had a way of knowing things, called a telephone,
Do you have any evidence Livingston spoke by phone to anybody at Parkland?
Didn't think so. Why would just assume such a conversation took place? Oh,
that's right. You need that to be true for you theories to hold water.
Do you have ANY evidence that Livingston did NOT speak to Humes as he
said he did? No? Didn't think so. What crap! You think the telephone
wasn't invented in 1963? Livingston stated he spoke with Humes and
explained the tracheotomy to him that was near the bullet hole. What's
the matter with you? I'm not giving you "theories", I'm giving you direct
testimony of eyewitnesses they were involved in the events they
described.


The guy stated in a video that he spoke with Humes. If you have
doubts and think he is lying, then say so, give your proof, and stop all
the pussyfooting around.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
but
his video said he told Humes that there was a bullet entrance near to the
tracheotomy. It was enough for Humes to figure out that they overlapped
once he saw the throat. However, here are the words also of Dr. Perry at
"Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations
with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital?
Dr. PERRY - Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - When did that conversation occur?
Dr. PERRY - My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in
doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but
I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have an independent recollection at this moment as to
whether it was on Friday or Saturday?
Dr. PERRY - No, sir; I have thought about it again and the events surrounding
that weekend were very kaleidoscopic, and I talked with Dr. Humes on two
occasions, separated by a very short interval of, I think it was, 30 minutes
or an hour or so, it could have been a little longer.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the medium of your conversation?
Dr. PERRY - Over the telephone.
Mr. SPECTER - Did he identify himself to you as Dr. Humes of Bethesda?
Dr. PERRY - He did.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you state as specifically as you can recollect the
conversation that you first had with him?
Dr. PERRY - He advised me that he could not discuss with me the findings of
necropsy, that he had a few questions he would like to clarify. The initial
phone call was in relation to my doing a tracheotomy. Since I had made the
incision directly through the wound in the neck, it made it difficult for
them to ascertain the exact nature of this wound. Of course, that did not
occur to me at the time."
Note that Perry's first impression was that he spoke with Humes Friday
night, but it sounds like someone told him it was Saturday later.
If Perry had a clear recollection of speaking to Humes on Friday night, he
wouldn't have needed anyone to tell him when that conversation occurred.
WRONG! You don't know that. And Audrey Bell wasn't the only one who
corroborated the information that Perry talked to Bethesda on Friday
night. I have no patience with you on this score, as with many that you
constantly repeat over and over just to get your name on the boards and
have another chance to argue and relive your loss of yet another argument.
If Perry talked to someone from Bethesda in the evening, then do you think
that person would NOT tell Humes? Ridiculous!
Post by bigdog
I
have no doubt that Perry spoke to someone at Bethesda on Friday night but
there is no testimony from anyone that it was Humes he spoke to.
See above.




WRONG! Nurse Audrey Bell stated that Perry had talked to Bethesda.
Post by bigdog
Whomever
he spoke to, that would have been to confirm what the autopsy team already
suspected when the traced the track of the tissue damage from the back
wound to the trachea, that a tracheostomy had obliterated the exit wound.
That solved the puzzle for why they had an entrance wound with no apparent
exit and no bullet in the body. Once Perry confirmed what they already
suspected, they had their exit wound.
WRONG! At NO TIME did the prosectors dissect the path of the back
wound bullet and prove that it went to the throat wound and out. And the
AR agrees with that.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The third person was Nurse Audrey Bell, who heard the complaints of
DR. Perry, who said he was getting calls from Humes at night. So that fits
with Perry's first impression.
Why do you keep twisting the words of the witnesses you cite. Audrey Bell
did NOT say Perry told her he talked to Humes the night before. He told
her he had talked to someone at Bethesda. Her testimony does not indicate
that someone was Humes. That was your insertion to misrepresent what Bell
actually said. Why do you continually have to modify what witnesses have
said to try to make your theories hold water?
I also deal in common sense and not in pick, pick, pick. No matter
who Perry talked to at Bethesda, they would pass on the info to Humes, who
was nominally in charge of the autopsy.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-30 15:08:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot
Post by bigdog
The autopsy team suspected by the time the autopsy was completed that a
tracheostomy had been performed over the exit wound which is why they
originally didn't think there had been one. Humes wanted to verify that
with Dr. Perry directly and that conversation took place the following
morning. There had been conversations between Parkland and Bethesda during
the autopsy but Saturday morning is when Humes spoke directly to Perry.
You can't cite a single witness who said Humes spoke directly to Perry the
previous night.
WRONG as usual! Your lack of knowledge about this case leads you
into trouble often. Here are 3 witnesses proving that Humes knew the day
of the murder that a tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound in the
throat.
1. Dr. Livingston - http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
2. Dr. Ebersole
"After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole,
MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, ???Ebersole had told me
during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound
from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he
had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy
??? that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that
intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound ???
corresponding to the back entrance wound ??? was
solved.???[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two
hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm
3. Nurse Audrey Bell -
"Given permission, she continues, ???Saturday morning when I got
over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of
course he had been primary until Dr. Clark came ??? He sat down in a
chair. I said, ???You look awful. Did you get any sleep last
night???? And he said, ???Well, not too much between the calls
from Bethesda that came in during the night.??? I said,
???What about???? He said, ???Oh. Whether that was an
entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat.??? He said,
???They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance
wound.?????? [31] Nurse Bell clarifies that her exchange with
Dr. Perry occurred in the morning, before he decamped just after the
Saturday press conference, during which he was silent after telling Dr.
Kemp Clark what Humes had told him, and asking Clark to take over for him
to avoid having to lie at the Saturday afternoon press conference. Chalk
up another perjury for Humes, who testified that he did not discuss the
results of the autopsy with Dr. Perry. [32] The frosting on the cover-up
cake may now be tasted. Perry talked to Humes on Friday and told him that
the throat wound was an entrance wound, as did Dr. Livingston, and almost
certainly others."
From: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html
Humes knew about the tracheostomy during the autopsy. Try and get it
right next time.
Try reading for comprehension next time. I stated that the autopsy team
suspected during the autopsy that the tracheostomy incision had been
performed over the bullet hole but that wasn't confirmed until the next
morning when Humes spoke directly to Perry. None of the witnesses you have
cited refutes that. Livingston did not claim to have told Humes that the
tracheostomy incision had been performed over the bullet hole because he
had no way of knowing that. You didn't quote Ebersole, you quoted Mantik
but even he doesn't tell us Humes spoke to Perry the night of the autopsy.
Bell did not say Humes and Perry spoke to each other on Friday night
either. Not only did you not comprehend what I wrote, you failed to
comprehend what the people you cited said either.
WRONG! I have Ebersole's words from his testimony. Looks like you
"Dr. EBERSOLE. Somewhere in the course of the evening Dr. Humes received
information from Dallas re the procedures that had been carried out there,
number one. Number two, somewhere in the course of the evening Dallas sent
to us the bony fragments you saw which were X rayed as to how this was
carried out. The mechanics I don't know. Somewhere in the course of the
autopsy Dr. Humes was made aware of the surgical procedures at Dallas
vis-a-vis the neck.
Mr. PURDY. And what was that information?
Dr. EBERSOLE. The information was that there had been a wound of exit there,
a tracheotomy and a suturing done."
From: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ebersole.htm
You are quoting Ebersole here. You quoted Mantik in your previous post,
not Ebersole. In neither version does Ebersole say Humes spoke to Perry on
Friday night. Nobody has said that.
Pick, pick, pick. You'll never get it that way. You need to apply
your brain.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Now Livingston had a way of knowing things, called a telephone,
Do you have any evidence Livingston spoke by phone to anybody at Parkland?
Didn't think so. Why would just assume such a conversation took place? Oh,
that's right. You need that to be true for you theories to hold water.
Do you have ANY evidence that Livingston did NOT speak to Humes as he
said he did? No? Didn't think so. What crap! You think the telephone
Argumentum ad Ignrantiam. It's not up to us to disprove your shit. It's
up to you to prove it.
#Dont be a McAdams.
Post by mainframetech
wasn't invented in 1963? Livingston stated he spoke with Humes and
explained the tracheotomy to him that was near the bullet hole. What's
the matter with you? I'm not giving you "theories", I'm giving you direct
testimony of eyewitnesses they were involved in the events they
described.
The guy stated in a video that he spoke with Humes. If you have
doubts and think he is lying, then say so, give your proof, and stop all
the pussyfooting around.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
but
his video said he told Humes that there was a bullet entrance near to the
tracheotomy. It was enough for Humes to figure out that they overlapped
once he saw the throat. However, here are the words also of Dr. Perry at
"Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations
with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital?
Dr. PERRY - Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - When did that conversation occur?
Dr. PERRY - My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in
doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but
I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have an independent recollection at this moment as to
whether it was on Friday or Saturday?
Dr. PERRY - No, sir; I have thought about it again and the events surrounding
that weekend were very kaleidoscopic, and I talked with Dr. Humes on two
occasions, separated by a very short interval of, I think it was, 30 minutes
or an hour or so, it could have been a little longer.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the medium of your conversation?
Dr. PERRY - Over the telephone.
Mr. SPECTER - Did he identify himself to you as Dr. Humes of Bethesda?
Dr. PERRY - He did.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you state as specifically as you can recollect the
conversation that you first had with him?
Dr. PERRY - He advised me that he could not discuss with me the findings of
necropsy, that he had a few questions he would like to clarify. The initial
phone call was in relation to my doing a tracheotomy. Since I had made the
incision directly through the wound in the neck, it made it difficult for
them to ascertain the exact nature of this wound. Of course, that did not
occur to me at the time."
Note that Perry's first impression was that he spoke with Humes Friday
night, but it sounds like someone told him it was Saturday later.
If Perry had a clear recollection of speaking to Humes on Friday night, he
wouldn't have needed anyone to tell him when that conversation occurred.
WRONG! You don't know that. And Audrey Bell wasn't the only one who
corroborated the information that Perry talked to Bethesda on Friday
night. I have no patience with you on this score, as with many that you
constantly repeat over and over just to get your name on the boards and
have another chance to argue and relive your loss of yet another argument.
If Perry talked to someone from Bethesda in the evening, then do you think
that person would NOT tell Humes? Ridiculous!
Post by bigdog
I
have no doubt that Perry spoke to someone at Bethesda on Friday night but
there is no testimony from anyone that it was Humes he spoke to.
See above.
WRONG! Nurse Audrey Bell stated that Perry had talked to Bethesda.
Post by bigdog
Whomever
he spoke to, that would have been to confirm what the autopsy team already
suspected when the traced the track of the tissue damage from the back
wound to the trachea, that a tracheostomy had obliterated the exit wound.
That solved the puzzle for why they had an entrance wound with no apparent
exit and no bullet in the body. Once Perry confirmed what they already
suspected, they had their exit wound.
WRONG! At NO TIME did the prosectors dissect the path of the back
wound bullet and prove that it went to the throat wound and out. And the
AR agrees with that.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The third person was Nurse Audrey Bell, who heard the complaints of
DR. Perry, who said he was getting calls from Humes at night. So that fits
with Perry's first impression.
Why do you keep twisting the words of the witnesses you cite. Audrey Bell
did NOT say Perry told her he talked to Humes the night before. He told
her he had talked to someone at Bethesda. Her testimony does not indicate
that someone was Humes. That was your insertion to misrepresent what Bell
actually said. Why do you continually have to modify what witnesses have
said to try to make your theories hold water?
I also deal in common sense and not in pick, pick, pick. No matter
who Perry talked to at Bethesda, they would pass on the info to Humes, who
was nominally in charge of the autopsy.
Chris
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-07-30 01:59:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot
Post by bigdog
The autopsy team suspected by the time the autopsy was completed that a
tracheostomy had been performed over the exit wound which is why they
originally didn't think there had been one. Humes wanted to verify that
with Dr. Perry directly and that conversation took place the following
morning. There had been conversations between Parkland and Bethesda during
the autopsy but Saturday morning is when Humes spoke directly to Perry.
You can't cite a single witness who said Humes spoke directly to Perry the
previous night.
WRONG as usual! Your lack of knowledge about this case leads you
into trouble often. Here are 3 witnesses proving that Humes knew the day
of the murder that a tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound in the
throat.
1. Dr. Livingston - http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
2. Dr. Ebersole
"After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole,
MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, “Ebersole had told me
during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound
from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he
had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy
– that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that
intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound –
corresponding to the back entrance wound – was
solved.”[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two
hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm
3. Nurse Audrey Bell -
"Given permission, she continues, “Saturday morning when I got
over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of
course he had been primary until Dr. Clark came … He sat down in a
chair. I said, ‘You look awful. Did you get any sleep last
night?’ And he said, ‘Well, not too much between the calls
from Bethesda that came in during the night.’ I said,
‘What about?’ He said, ‘Oh. Whether that was an
entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat.’ He said,
‘They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance
wound.’” [31] Nurse Bell clarifies that her exchange with
Dr. Perry occurred in the morning, before he decamped just after the
Saturday press conference, during which he was silent after telling Dr.
Kemp Clark what Humes had told him, and asking Clark to take over for him
to avoid having to lie at the Saturday afternoon press conference. Chalk
up another perjury for Humes, who testified that he did not discuss the
results of the autopsy with Dr. Perry. [32] The frosting on the cover-up
cake may now be tasted. Perry talked to Humes on Friday and told him that
the throat wound was an entrance wound, as did Dr. Livingston, and almost
certainly others."
From: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html
Humes knew about the tracheostomy during the autopsy. Try and get it
right next time.
Try reading for comprehension next time. I stated that the autopsy team
suspected during the autopsy that the tracheostomy incision had been
performed over the bullet hole but that wasn't confirmed until the next
morning when Humes spoke directly to Perry. None of the witnesses you have
cited refutes that. Livingston did not claim to have told Humes that the
tracheostomy incision had been performed over the bullet hole because he
had no way of knowing that. You didn't quote Ebersole, you quoted Mantik
but even he doesn't tell us Humes spoke to Perry the night of the autopsy.
Bell did not say Humes and Perry spoke to each other on Friday night
either. Not only did you not comprehend what I wrote, you failed to
comprehend what the people you cited said either.
WRONG! I have Ebersole's words from his testimony. Looks like you
"Dr. EBERSOLE. Somewhere in the course of the evening Dr. Humes received
information from Dallas re the procedures that had been carried out there,
number one. Number two, somewhere in the course of the evening Dallas sent
to us the bony fragments you saw which were X rayed as to how this was
carried out. The mechanics I don't know. Somewhere in the course of the
autopsy Dr. Humes was made aware of the surgical procedures at Dallas
vis-a-vis the neck.
Mr. PURDY. And what was that information?
Dr. EBERSOLE. The information was that there had been a wound of exit there,
a tracheotomy and a suturing done."
From: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ebersole.htm
You are quoting Ebersole here. You quoted Mantik in your previous post,
not Ebersole. In neither version does Ebersole say Humes spoke to Perry on
Friday night. Nobody has said that.
Post by mainframetech
Now Livingston had a way of knowing things, called a telephone,
Do you have any evidence Livingston spoke by phone to anybody at Parkland?
Didn't think so. Why would just assume such a conversation took place? Oh,
that's right. You need that to be true for you theories to hold water.
Post by mainframetech
but
his video said he told Humes that there was a bullet entrance near to the
tracheotomy. It was enough for Humes to figure out that they overlapped
once he saw the throat. However, here are the words also of Dr. Perry at
"Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations
with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital?
Dr. PERRY - Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - When did that conversation occur?
Dr. PERRY - My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in
doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but
I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have an independent recollection at this moment as to
whether it was on Friday or Saturday?
Dr. PERRY - No, sir; I have thought about it again and the events surrounding
that weekend were very kaleidoscopic, and I talked with Dr. Humes on two
occasions, separated by a very short interval of, I think it was, 30 minutes
or an hour or so, it could have been a little longer.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the medium of your conversation?
Dr. PERRY - Over the telephone.
Mr. SPECTER - Did he identify himself to you as Dr. Humes of Bethesda?
Dr. PERRY - He did.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you state as specifically as you can recollect the
conversation that you first had with him?
Dr. PERRY - He advised me that he could not discuss with me the findings of
necropsy, that he had a few questions he would like to clarify. The initial
phone call was in relation to my doing a tracheotomy. Since I had made the
incision directly through the wound in the neck, it made it difficult for
them to ascertain the exact nature of this wound. Of course, that did not
occur to me at the time."
Note that Perry's first impression was that he spoke with Humes Friday
night, but it sounds like someone told him it was Saturday later.
If Perry had a clear recollection of speaking to Humes on Friday night, he
wouldn't have needed anyone to tell him when that conversation occurred. I
have no doubt that Perry spoke to someone at Bethesda on Friday night but
there is no testimony from anyone that it was Humes he spoke to. Whomever
he spoke to, that would have been to confirm what the autopsy team already
suspected when the traced the track of the tissue damage from the back
wound to the trachea, that a tracheostomy had obliterated the exit wound.
That solved the puzzle for why they had an entrance wound with no apparent
exit and no bullet in the body. Once Perry confirmed what they already
suspected, they had their exit wound.
Post by mainframetech
The third person was Nurse Audrey Bell, who heard the complaints of
DR. Perry, who aid he was getting calls from Humes at night. So that fits
with Perry's first impression.
Why do you keep twisting the words of the witnesses you cite. Audrey Bell
did NOT say Perry told her he talked to Humes the night before. He told
her he had talked to someone at Bethesda. Her testimony does not indicate
that someone was Humes. That was your insertion to misrepresent what Bell
actually said. Why do you continually have to modify what witnesses have
said to try to make your theories hold water?
BD this statement is simply not, in my opinion, supported by the evidence.
You wrote: '[T]hat would have been to confirm what the autopsy team
already suspected when the traced the track of the tissue damage from the
back wound to the trachea..."

Where is the evidence they "suspected" this? The evidence for me indicates
they - Humes et al. - gave up trying to figure out where the bullet went.

From Humes and Boswell's JAMA interview: "The second bullet was more of a
puzzle. 'If we made a mistake,' Humes says, 'it was in NOT calling Dallas
before we started the autopsy. Our information from Parkland Hospital in
Dallas before we started the autopsy was zero.'

Humes again: "The tracheostomy was a gaping wound, about 3 to 4 centimere
around, and we didn't think of it as an exit wound... We also noted
damages to the neck muscles, trachea, and pleura, but there was no bullet.
It was bothering me very greatly, like nothing you can imagine, that we
could find neither the second bullet nor its track. 'J' and I both knew
that bullets can do funny things in the body and we thought it might have
deflected down to the extremities."

Key statement by Humes: "By midnight, we decided it was time to quit
speculating about the second bullet, and I am very comfortable with this
decision....By midnight our task was done - it was perfectly obvious what
had killed the man. The second bullet was important, but not of overriding
importance. WE KNEW THAT WE WOULD FIND THE EXPLANATION SOONER OR LATER."

It's clear from Humes' own words that they didn't know - or even suspect -
that the tracheostomy covered a bullet wound.

Full JAMA piece is here: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md22/html/Image00.htm
bigdog
2018-07-30 21:33:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot
Post by bigdog
The autopsy team suspected by the time the autopsy was completed that a
tracheostomy had been performed over the exit wound which is why they
originally didn't think there had been one. Humes wanted to verify that
with Dr. Perry directly and that conversation took place the following
morning. There had been conversations between Parkland and Bethesda during
the autopsy but Saturday morning is when Humes spoke directly to Perry.
You can't cite a single witness who said Humes spoke directly to Perry the
previous night.
WRONG as usual! Your lack of knowledge about this case leads you
into trouble often. Here are 3 witnesses proving that Humes knew the day
of the murder that a tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound in the
throat.
1. Dr. Livingston - http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
2. Dr. Ebersole
"After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole,
MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, “Ebersole had told me
during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound
from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he
had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy
– that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that
intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound –
corresponding to the back entrance wound – was
solved.”[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two
hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm
3. Nurse Audrey Bell -
"Given permission, she continues, “Saturday morning when I got
over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of
course he had been primary until Dr. Clark came … He sat down in a
chair. I said, ‘You look awful. Did you get any sleep last
night?’ And he said, ‘Well, not too much between the calls
from Bethesda that came in during the night.’ I said,
‘What about?’ He said, ‘Oh. Whether that was an
entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat.’ He said,
‘They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance
wound.’” [31] Nurse Bell clarifies that her exchange with
Dr. Perry occurred in the morning, before he decamped just after the
Saturday press conference, during which he was silent after telling Dr.
Kemp Clark what Humes had told him, and asking Clark to take over for him
to avoid having to lie at the Saturday afternoon press conference. Chalk
up another perjury for Humes, who testified that he did not discuss the
results of the autopsy with Dr. Perry. [32] The frosting on the cover-up
cake may now be tasted. Perry talked to Humes on Friday and told him that
the throat wound was an entrance wound, as did Dr. Livingston, and almost
certainly others."
From: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html
Humes knew about the tracheostomy during the autopsy. Try and get it
right next time.
Try reading for comprehension next time. I stated that the autopsy team
suspected during the autopsy that the tracheostomy incision had been
performed over the bullet hole but that wasn't confirmed until the next
morning when Humes spoke directly to Perry. None of the witnesses you have
cited refutes that. Livingston did not claim to have told Humes that the
tracheostomy incision had been performed over the bullet hole because he
had no way of knowing that. You didn't quote Ebersole, you quoted Mantik
but even he doesn't tell us Humes spoke to Perry the night of the autopsy.
Bell did not say Humes and Perry spoke to each other on Friday night
either. Not only did you not comprehend what I wrote, you failed to
comprehend what the people you cited said either.
WRONG! I have Ebersole's words from his testimony. Looks like you
"Dr. EBERSOLE. Somewhere in the course of the evening Dr. Humes received
information from Dallas re the procedures that had been carried out there,
number one. Number two, somewhere in the course of the evening Dallas sent
to us the bony fragments you saw which were X rayed as to how this was
carried out. The mechanics I don't know. Somewhere in the course of the
autopsy Dr. Humes was made aware of the surgical procedures at Dallas
vis-a-vis the neck.
Mr. PURDY. And what was that information?
Dr. EBERSOLE. The information was that there had been a wound of exit there,
a tracheotomy and a suturing done."
From: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ebersole.htm
You are quoting Ebersole here. You quoted Mantik in your previous post,
not Ebersole. In neither version does Ebersole say Humes spoke to Perry on
Friday night. Nobody has said that.
Post by mainframetech
Now Livingston had a way of knowing things, called a telephone,
Do you have any evidence Livingston spoke by phone to anybody at Parkland?
Didn't think so. Why would just assume such a conversation took place? Oh,
that's right. You need that to be true for you theories to hold water.
Post by mainframetech
but
his video said he told Humes that there was a bullet entrance near to the
tracheotomy. It was enough for Humes to figure out that they overlapped
once he saw the throat. However, here are the words also of Dr. Perry at
"Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations
with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital?
Dr. PERRY - Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - When did that conversation occur?
Dr. PERRY - My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in
doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but
I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have an independent recollection at this moment as to
whether it was on Friday or Saturday?
Dr. PERRY - No, sir; I have thought about it again and the events surrounding
that weekend were very kaleidoscopic, and I talked with Dr. Humes on two
occasions, separated by a very short interval of, I think it was, 30 minutes
or an hour or so, it could have been a little longer.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the medium of your conversation?
Dr. PERRY - Over the telephone.
Mr. SPECTER - Did he identify himself to you as Dr. Humes of Bethesda?
Dr. PERRY - He did.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you state as specifically as you can recollect the
conversation that you first had with him?
Dr. PERRY - He advised me that he could not discuss with me the findings of
necropsy, that he had a few questions he would like to clarify. The initial
phone call was in relation to my doing a tracheotomy. Since I had made the
incision directly through the wound in the neck, it made it difficult for
them to ascertain the exact nature of this wound. Of course, that did not
occur to me at the time."
Note that Perry's first impression was that he spoke with Humes Friday
night, but it sounds like someone told him it was Saturday later.
If Perry had a clear recollection of speaking to Humes on Friday night, he
wouldn't have needed anyone to tell him when that conversation occurred. I
have no doubt that Perry spoke to someone at Bethesda on Friday night but
there is no testimony from anyone that it was Humes he spoke to. Whomever
he spoke to, that would have been to confirm what the autopsy team already
suspected when the traced the track of the tissue damage from the back
wound to the trachea, that a tracheostomy had obliterated the exit wound.
That solved the puzzle for why they had an entrance wound with no apparent
exit and no bullet in the body. Once Perry confirmed what they already
suspected, they had their exit wound.
Post by mainframetech
The third person was Nurse Audrey Bell, who heard the complaints of
DR. Perry, who aid he was getting calls from Humes at night. So that fits
with Perry's first impression.
Why do you keep twisting the words of the witnesses you cite. Audrey Bell
did NOT say Perry told her he talked to Humes the night before. He told
her he had talked to someone at Bethesda. Her testimony does not indicate
that someone was Humes. That was your insertion to misrepresent what Bell
actually said. Why do you continually have to modify what witnesses have
said to try to make your theories hold water?
BD this statement is simply not, in my opinion, supported by the evidence.
You wrote: '[T]hat would have been to confirm what the autopsy team
already suspected when the traced the track of the tissue damage from the
back wound to the trachea..."
Where is the evidence they "suspected" this? The evidence for me indicates
they - Humes et al. - gave up trying to figure out where the bullet went.
Read Ebersole's testimony to the HSCA. I went to McAdams' assassination
witness page and clicked the link for his deposition but got a message
that said it was not found. Perhaps it is temporarily down. I've used it
in the past. If not maybe you can find another source. In any case they
would have to have been pretty stupid if they noted that the tissue damage
went from the back wound to the damaged trachea and not at least suspected
the bullet exited at the point of the trachea incision.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
From Humes and Boswell's JAMA interview: "The second bullet was more of a
puzzle. 'If we made a mistake,' Humes says, 'it was in NOT calling Dallas
before we started the autopsy. Our information from Parkland Hospital in
Dallas before we started the autopsy was zero.'
That part is true. It is also true that they began communications with
Parkland during the autopsy.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Humes again: "The tracheostomy was a gaping wound, about 3 to 4 centimere
around, and we didn't think of it as an exit wound... We also noted
damages to the neck muscles, trachea, and pleura, but there was no bullet.
It was bothering me very greatly, like nothing you can imagine, that we
could find neither the second bullet nor its track. 'J' and I both knew
that bullets can do funny things in the body and we thought it might have
deflected down to the extremities."
Key statement by Humes: "By midnight, we decided it was time to quit
speculating about the second bullet, and I am very comfortable with this
decision....By midnight our task was done - it was perfectly obvious what
had killed the man. The second bullet was important, but not of overriding
importance. WE KNEW THAT WE WOULD FIND THE EXPLANATION SOONER OR LATER."
It's clear from Humes' own words that they didn't know - or even suspect -
that the tracheostomy covered a bullet wound.
Full JAMA piece is here: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md22/html/Image00.htm
What is clear to me is they were very confused at first but by the time
they were finished they at least suspected the bullet had exited the
throat. Apparently Humes wanted to confirm that with Perry, hence his
statement that sooner or later they would find the explanation. In short,
they couldn't conclude an exit from the throat based solely on what they
saw but they believed speaking to Perry would clear up the mystery. If he
wasn't confident of that, why would he say that sooner or later they would
have the explanation.
John McAdams
2018-07-30 21:44:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Where is the evidence they "suspected" this? The evidence for me indicates
they - Humes et al. - gave up trying to figure out where the bullet went.
Read Ebersole's testimony to the HSCA. I went to McAdams' assassination
witness page and clicked the link for his deposition but got a message
that said it was not found.
http://web.archive.org/web/20031224195057/http://www.geocities.com:80/jfkinfo3/testimony/ebersole.htm
Post by bigdog
Perhaps it is temporarily down. I've used it
in the past. If not maybe you can find another source. In any case they
would have to have been pretty stupid if they noted that the tissue damage
went from the back wound to the damaged trachea and not at least suspected
the bullet exited at the point of the trachea incision.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
bigdog
2018-07-31 14:47:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Where is the evidence they "suspected" this? The evidence for me indicates
they - Humes et al. - gave up trying to figure out where the bullet went.
Read Ebersole's testimony to the HSCA. I went to McAdams' assassination
witness page and clicked the link for his deposition but got a message
that said it was not found.
http://web.archive.org/web/20031224195057/http://www.geocities.com:80/jfkinfo3/testimony/ebersole.htm
Post by bigdog
Perhaps it is temporarily down. I've used it
in the past. If not maybe you can find another source. In any case they
would have to have been pretty stupid if they noted that the tissue damage
went from the back wound to the damaged trachea and not at least suspected
the bullet exited at the point of the trachea incision.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Thanks, John.

This is the pertinent passage from Dr. Ebersole's deposition.

Mr. PURDY. One other question I have has to do with the nature of the
information you received from other sources on the night of the autopsy.
You mentioned a phone call which helped clear up confusion.
Dr. EBERSOLE. Somewhere in the course of the evening Dr. Humes received
information from Dallas re the procedures that had been carried out there,
number one. Number two, somewhere in the course of the evening Dallas sent
to us the bony fragments you saw which were X rayed as to how this was
carried out. The mechanics I don't know. Somewhere in the course of the
autopsy Dr. Humes was made aware of the surgical procedures at Dallas
vis-a-vis the neck.
Mr. PURDY. And what was that information?
Dr. EBERSOLE. The information was that there had been a wound of exit there,
a tracheotomy and a suturing done.
Mr. PURDY. Do you recall how that information was conveyed to Dr. Humes?
Dr. EBERSOLE. I don't. I don't recall.

There are two key points here. One is that Humes learned of tracheostomy
over the bullet hole at sometime during the evening. Although not specific
about the time, it seems likely it was in the latter stages. The other is
that Ebersole's testimony does not support Chris's contention that Humes
spoke directly to Perry that evening. He simply didn't recall how Humes
received the information. While Ebersole's statement doesn't preclude the
possibility of direct communication between the two, he can't be cited as
a source that supports that such a conversation took place.
John McAdams
2018-07-31 14:49:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by John McAdams
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Where is the evidence they "suspected" this? The evidence for me indicates
they - Humes et al. - gave up trying to figure out where the bullet went.
Read Ebersole's testimony to the HSCA. I went to McAdams' assassination
witness page and clicked the link for his deposition but got a message
that said it was not found.
http://web.archive.org/web/20031224195057/http://www.geocities.com:80/jfkinfo3/testimony/ebersole.htm
Post by bigdog
Perhaps it is temporarily down. I've used it
in the past. If not maybe you can find another source. In any case they
would have to have been pretty stupid if they noted that the tissue damage
went from the back wound to the damaged trachea and not at least suspected
the bullet exited at the point of the trachea incision.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Thanks, John.
This is the pertinent passage from Dr. Ebersole's deposition.
Mr. PURDY. One other question I have has to do with the nature of the
information you received from other sources on the night of the autopsy.
You mentioned a phone call which helped clear up confusion.
Dr. EBERSOLE. Somewhere in the course of the evening Dr. Humes received
information from Dallas re the procedures that had been carried out there,
number one. Number two, somewhere in the course of the evening Dallas sent
to us the bony fragments you saw which were X rayed as to how this was
carried out. The mechanics I don't know. Somewhere in the course of the
autopsy Dr. Humes was made aware of the surgical procedures at Dallas
vis-a-vis the neck.
Mr. PURDY. And what was that information?
Dr. EBERSOLE. The information was that there had been a wound of exit there,
a tracheotomy and a suturing done.
Mr. PURDY. Do you recall how that information was conveyed to Dr. Humes?
Dr. EBERSOLE. I don't. I don't recall.
There are two key points here. One is that Humes learned of tracheostomy
over the bullet hole at sometime during the evening.
Between believing Ebersole about what Humes knew, or believing Humes,
I'll believe Humes.

Especially when tons of other evidence points to the pathologists
being utterly clueless about the throat wound that evening.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-07-31 01:32:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot
Post by bigdog
The autopsy team suspected by the time the autopsy was completed that a
tracheostomy had been performed over the exit wound which is why they
originally didn't think there had been one. Humes wanted to verify that
with Dr. Perry directly and that conversation took place the following
morning. There had been conversations between Parkland and Bethesda during
the autopsy but Saturday morning is when Humes spoke directly to Perry.
You can't cite a single witness who said Humes spoke directly to Perry the
previous night.
WRONG as usual! Your lack of knowledge about this case leads you
into trouble often. Here are 3 witnesses proving that Humes knew the day
of the murder that a tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound in the
throat.
1. Dr. Livingston - http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
2. Dr. Ebersole
"After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole,
MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, “Ebersole had told me
during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound
from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he
had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy
– that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that
intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound –
corresponding to the back entrance wound – was
solved.”[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two
hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm
3. Nurse Audrey Bell -
"Given permission, she continues, “Saturday morning when I got
over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of
course he had been primary until Dr. Clark came … He sat down in a
chair. I said, ‘You look awful. Did you get any sleep last
night?’ And he said, ‘Well, not too much between the calls
from Bethesda that came in during the night.’ I said,
‘What about?’ He said, ‘Oh. Whether that was an
entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat.’ He said,
‘They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance
wound.’” [31] Nurse Bell clarifies that her exchange with
Dr. Perry occurred in the morning, before he decamped just after the
Saturday press conference, during which he was silent after telling Dr.
Kemp Clark what Humes had told him, and asking Clark to take over for him
to avoid having to lie at the Saturday afternoon press conference. Chalk
up another perjury for Humes, who testified that he did not discuss the
results of the autopsy with Dr. Perry. [32] The frosting on the cover-up
cake may now be tasted. Perry talked to Humes on Friday and told him that
the throat wound was an entrance wound, as did Dr. Livingston, and almost
certainly others."
From: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html
Humes knew about the tracheostomy during the autopsy. Try and get it
right next time.
Try reading for comprehension next time. I stated that the autopsy team
suspected during the autopsy that the tracheostomy incision had been
performed over the bullet hole but that wasn't confirmed until the next
morning when Humes spoke directly to Perry. None of the witnesses you have
cited refutes that. Livingston did not claim to have told Humes that the
tracheostomy incision had been performed over the bullet hole because he
had no way of knowing that. You didn't quote Ebersole, you quoted Mantik
but even he doesn't tell us Humes spoke to Perry the night of the autopsy.
Bell did not say Humes and Perry spoke to each other on Friday night
either. Not only did you not comprehend what I wrote, you failed to
comprehend what the people you cited said either.
WRONG! I have Ebersole's words from his testimony. Looks like you
"Dr. EBERSOLE. Somewhere in the course of the evening Dr. Humes received
information from Dallas re the procedures that had been carried out there,
number one. Number two, somewhere in the course of the evening Dallas sent
to us the bony fragments you saw which were X rayed as to how this was
carried out. The mechanics I don't know. Somewhere in the course of the
autopsy Dr. Humes was made aware of the surgical procedures at Dallas
vis-a-vis the neck.
Mr. PURDY. And what was that information?
Dr. EBERSOLE. The information was that there had been a wound of exit there,
a tracheotomy and a suturing done."
From: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ebersole.htm
You are quoting Ebersole here. You quoted Mantik in your previous post,
not Ebersole. In neither version does Ebersole say Humes spoke to Perry on
Friday night. Nobody has said that.
Post by mainframetech
Now Livingston had a way of knowing things, called a telephone,
Do you have any evidence Livingston spoke by phone to anybody at Parkland?
Didn't think so. Why would just assume such a conversation took place? Oh,
that's right. You need that to be true for you theories to hold water.
Post by mainframetech
but
his video said he told Humes that there was a bullet entrance near to the
tracheotomy. It was enough for Humes to figure out that they overlapped
once he saw the throat. However, here are the words also of Dr. Perry at
"Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations
with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital?
Dr. PERRY - Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - When did that conversation occur?
Dr. PERRY - My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in
doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but
I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have an independent recollection at this moment as to
whether it was on Friday or Saturday?
Dr. PERRY - No, sir; I have thought about it again and the events surrounding
that weekend were very kaleidoscopic, and I talked with Dr. Humes on two
occasions, separated by a very short interval of, I think it was, 30 minutes
or an hour or so, it could have been a little longer.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the medium of your conversation?
Dr. PERRY - Over the telephone.
Mr. SPECTER - Did he identify himself to you as Dr. Humes of Bethesda?
Dr. PERRY - He did.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you state as specifically as you can recollect the
conversation that you first had with him?
Dr. PERRY - He advised me that he could not discuss with me the findings of
necropsy, that he had a few questions he would like to clarify. The initial
phone call was in relation to my doing a tracheotomy. Since I had made the
incision directly through the wound in the neck, it made it difficult for
them to ascertain the exact nature of this wound. Of course, that did not
occur to me at the time."
Note that Perry's first impression was that he spoke with Humes Friday
night, but it sounds like someone told him it was Saturday later.
If Perry had a clear recollection of speaking to Humes on Friday night, he
wouldn't have needed anyone to tell him when that conversation occurred. I
have no doubt that Perry spoke to someone at Bethesda on Friday night but
there is no testimony from anyone that it was Humes he spoke to. Whomever
he spoke to, that would have been to confirm what the autopsy team already
suspected when the traced the track of the tissue damage from the back
wound to the trachea, that a tracheostomy had obliterated the exit wound.
That solved the puzzle for why they had an entrance wound with no apparent
exit and no bullet in the body. Once Perry confirmed what they already
suspected, they had their exit wound.
Post by mainframetech
The third person was Nurse Audrey Bell, who heard the complaints of
DR. Perry, who aid he was getting calls from Humes at night. So that fits
with Perry's first impression.
Why do you keep twisting the words of the witnesses you cite. Audrey Bell
did NOT say Perry told her he talked to Humes the night before. He told
her he had talked to someone at Bethesda. Her testimony does not indicate
that someone was Humes. That was your insertion to misrepresent what Bell
actually said. Why do you continually have to modify what witnesses have
said to try to make your theories hold water?
BD this statement is simply not, in my opinion, supported by the evidence.
You wrote: '[T]hat would have been to confirm what the autopsy team
already suspected when the traced the track of the tissue damage from the
back wound to the trachea..."
Where is the evidence they "suspected" this? The evidence for me indicates
they - Humes et al. - gave up trying to figure out where the bullet went.
Read Ebersole's testimony to the HSCA. I went to McAdams' assassination
witness page and clicked the link for his deposition but got a message
that said it was not found. Perhaps it is temporarily down. I've used it
in the past. If not maybe you can find another source. In any case they
would have to have been pretty stupid if they noted that the tissue damage
went from the back wound to the damaged trachea and not at least suspected
the bullet exited at the point of the trachea incision.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
From Humes and Boswell's JAMA interview: "The second bullet was more of a
puzzle. 'If we made a mistake,' Humes says, 'it was in NOT calling Dallas
before we started the autopsy. Our information from Parkland Hospital in
Dallas before we started the autopsy was zero.'
That part is true. It is also true that they began communications with
Parkland during the autopsy.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Humes again: "The tracheostomy was a gaping wound, about 3 to 4 centimere
around, and we didn't think of it as an exit wound... We also noted
damages to the neck muscles, trachea, and pleura, but there was no bullet.
It was bothering me very greatly, like nothing you can imagine, that we
could find neither the second bullet nor its track. 'J' and I both knew
that bullets can do funny things in the body and we thought it might have
deflected down to the extremities."
Key statement by Humes: "By midnight, we decided it was time to quit
speculating about the second bullet, and I am very comfortable with this
decision....By midnight our task was done - it was perfectly obvious what
had killed the man. The second bullet was important, but not of overriding
importance. WE KNEW THAT WE WOULD FIND THE EXPLANATION SOONER OR LATER."
It's clear from Humes' own words that they didn't know - or even suspect -
that the tracheostomy covered a bullet wound.
Full JAMA piece is here: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md22/html/Image00.htm
What is clear to me is they were very confused at first but by the time
they were finished they at least suspected the bullet had exited the
throat. Apparently Humes wanted to confirm that with Perry, hence his
statement that sooner or later they would find the explanation. In short,
they couldn't conclude an exit from the throat based solely on what they
saw but they believed speaking to Perry would clear up the mystery. If he
wasn't confident of that, why would he say that sooner or later they would
have the explanation.
Thanks. Yes, Ebersole's description supports your view that Humes and
Boswell suspected the neck wound was an exit wound. But why not dissect
it?

I would consider Humes a better source on what he thought and did at the
autopsy than the radiologist. As he himself said: "The tracheostomy was a
gaping wound, about 3 to 4 centimeters around, and we didn't think of it
as an exit wound..."

Again: "Didn't think of it as an exit wound." Nothing about suspecting it
or theorizing, et cetera. It's a pretty straight forward admission.

In his HSCA testimony he relates it this way: "I had to take one of my
children to a religious function that morning [i.e., Saturday], but then I
returned and made some phone calls and got hold of the people in Dallas,
which was unavailable to us during the course of the examination, as you
heard from Dr. Baden, and I couldn't agree more with the apparent findings
of his panel as to problems that we had had and hoped they would never be
repeated, and spoke with Dr. Perry and learned of the wound in the front
of the neck and things became a lot more obvious to us as to what had
occurred."

Frankly, I don't think they put the two - the back and neck wounds -
together until AFTER the autopsy.
mainframetech
2018-07-31 01:20:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot
Post by bigdog
The autopsy team suspected by the time the autopsy was completed that a
tracheostomy had been performed over the exit wound which is why they
originally didn't think there had been one. Humes wanted to verify that
with Dr. Perry directly and that conversation took place the following
morning. There had been conversations between Parkland and Bethesda during
the autopsy but Saturday morning is when Humes spoke directly to Perry.
You can't cite a single witness who said Humes spoke directly to Perry the
previous night.
WRONG as usual! Your lack of knowledge about this case leads you
into trouble often. Here are 3 witnesses proving that Humes knew the day
of the murder that a tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound in the
throat.
1. Dr. Livingston - http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
2. Dr. Ebersole
"After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole,
MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, “Ebersole had told me
during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound
from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he
had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy
– that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that
intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound –
corresponding to the back entrance wound – was
solved.”[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two
hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm
3. Nurse Audrey Bell -
"Given permission, she continues, “Saturday morning when I got
over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of
course he had been primary until Dr. Clark came … He sat down in a
chair. I said, ‘You look awful. Did you get any sleep last
night?’ And he said, ‘Well, not too much between the calls
from Bethesda that came in during the night.’ I said,
‘What about?’ He said, ‘Oh. Whether that was an
entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat.’ He said,
‘They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance
wound.’” [31] Nurse Bell clarifies that her exchange with
Dr. Perry occurred in the morning, before he decamped just after the
Saturday press conference, during which he was silent after telling Dr.
Kemp Clark what Humes had told him, and asking Clark to take over for him
to avoid having to lie at the Saturday afternoon press conference. Chalk
up another perjury for Humes, who testified that he did not discuss the
results of the autopsy with Dr. Perry. [32] The frosting on the cover-up
cake may now be tasted. Perry talked to Humes on Friday and told him that
the throat wound was an entrance wound, as did Dr. Livingston, and almost
certainly others."
From: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html
Humes knew about the tracheostomy during the autopsy. Try and get it
right next time.
Try reading for comprehension next time. I stated that the autopsy team
suspected during the autopsy that the tracheostomy incision had been
performed over the bullet hole but that wasn't confirmed until the next
morning when Humes spoke directly to Perry. None of the witnesses you have
cited refutes that. Livingston did not claim to have told Humes that the
tracheostomy incision had been performed over the bullet hole because he
had no way of knowing that. You didn't quote Ebersole, you quoted Mantik
but even he doesn't tell us Humes spoke to Perry the night of the autopsy.
Bell did not say Humes and Perry spoke to each other on Friday night
either. Not only did you not comprehend what I wrote, you failed to
comprehend what the people you cited said either.
WRONG! I have Ebersole's words from his testimony. Looks like you
"Dr. EBERSOLE. Somewhere in the course of the evening Dr. Humes received
information from Dallas re the procedures that had been carried out there,
number one. Number two, somewhere in the course of the evening Dallas sent
to us the bony fragments you saw which were X rayed as to how this was
carried out. The mechanics I don't know. Somewhere in the course of the
autopsy Dr. Humes was made aware of the surgical procedures at Dallas
vis-a-vis the neck.
Mr. PURDY. And what was that information?
Dr. EBERSOLE. The information was that there had been a wound of exit there,
a tracheotomy and a suturing done."
From: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ebersole.htm
You are quoting Ebersole here. You quoted Mantik in your previous post,
not Ebersole. In neither version does Ebersole say Humes spoke to Perry on
Friday night. Nobody has said that.
Post by mainframetech
Now Livingston had a way of knowing things, called a telephone,
Do you have any evidence Livingston spoke by phone to anybody at Parkland?
Didn't think so. Why would just assume such a conversation took place? Oh,
that's right. You need that to be true for you theories to hold water.
Post by mainframetech
but
his video said he told Humes that there was a bullet entrance near to the
tracheotomy. It was enough for Humes to figure out that they overlapped
once he saw the throat. However, here are the words also of Dr. Perry at
"Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations
with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital?
Dr. PERRY - Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - When did that conversation occur?
Dr. PERRY - My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in
doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but
I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have an independent recollection at this moment as to
whether it was on Friday or Saturday?
Dr. PERRY - No, sir; I have thought about it again and the events surrounding
that weekend were very kaleidoscopic, and I talked with Dr. Humes on two
occasions, separated by a very short interval of, I think it was, 30 minutes
or an hour or so, it could have been a little longer.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the medium of your conversation?
Dr. PERRY - Over the telephone.
Mr. SPECTER - Did he identify himself to you as Dr. Humes of Bethesda?
Dr. PERRY - He did.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you state as specifically as you can recollect the
conversation that you first had with him?
Dr. PERRY - He advised me that he could not discuss with me the findings of
necropsy, that he had a few questions he would like to clarify. The initial
phone call was in relation to my doing a tracheotomy. Since I had made the
incision directly through the wound in the neck, it made it difficult for
them to ascertain the exact nature of this wound. Of course, that did not
occur to me at the time."
Note that Perry's first impression was that he spoke with Humes Friday
night, but it sounds like someone told him it was Saturday later.
If Perry had a clear recollection of speaking to Humes on Friday night, he
wouldn't have needed anyone to tell him when that conversation occurred. I
have no doubt that Perry spoke to someone at Bethesda on Friday night but
there is no testimony from anyone that it was Humes he spoke to. Whomever
he spoke to, that would have been to confirm what the autopsy team already
suspected when the traced the track of the tissue damage from the back
wound to the trachea, that a tracheostomy had obliterated the exit wound.
That solved the puzzle for why they had an entrance wound with no apparent
exit and no bullet in the body. Once Perry confirmed what they already
suspected, they had their exit wound.
Post by mainframetech
The third person was Nurse Audrey Bell, who heard the complaints of
DR. Perry, who aid he was getting calls from Humes at night. So that fits
with Perry's first impression.
Why do you keep twisting the words of the witnesses you cite. Audrey Bell
did NOT say Perry told her he talked to Humes the night before. He told
her he had talked to someone at Bethesda. Her testimony does not indicate
that someone was Humes. That was your insertion to misrepresent what Bell
actually said. Why do you continually have to modify what witnesses have
said to try to make your theories hold water?
BD this statement is simply not, in my opinion, supported by the evidence.
You wrote: '[T]hat would have been to confirm what the autopsy team
already suspected when the traced the track of the tissue damage from the
back wound to the trachea..."
Where is the evidence they "suspected" this? The evidence for me indicates
they - Humes et al. - gave up trying to figure out where the bullet went.
From Humes and Boswell's JAMA interview: "The second bullet was more of a
puzzle. 'If we made a mistake,' Humes says, 'it was in NOT calling Dallas
before we started the autopsy. Our information from Parkland Hospital in
Dallas before we started the autopsy was zero.'
Humes again: "The tracheostomy was a gaping wound, about 3 to 4 centimere
around, and we didn't think of it as an exit wound... We also noted
damages to the neck muscles, trachea, and pleura, but there was no bullet.
It was bothering me very greatly, like nothing you can imagine, that we
could find neither the second bullet nor its track. 'J' and I both knew
that bullets can do funny things in the body and we thought it might have
deflected down to the extremities."
Key statement by Humes: "By midnight, we decided it was time to quit
speculating about the second bullet, and I am very comfortable with this
decision....By midnight our task was done - it was perfectly obvious what
had killed the man. The second bullet was important, but not of overriding
importance. WE KNEW THAT WE WOULD FIND THE EXPLANATION SOONER OR LATER."
It's clear from Humes' own words that they didn't know - or even suspect -
that the tracheostomy covered a bullet wound.
Full JAMA piece is here: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md22/html/Image00.htm
So you effectively ignored the 3 witnesses to Humes knowing DURING the
autopsy that the tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound. Just to make
it all come out nicely. However, it never occurred to you that
tracheostomies are usually neat little thin slices to admit a tube or
straw or similar to allow air to pass the trachea. It is a neat, thin
little slice. Yet the GASH in the neck was a big messy wound! Why was
this so? Well, I believe the orders were to remove bullets from the body
and since the throat wound was an entrance wound, there was probably a
bullet back in that wound and they had to make the mess trying to find it
and remove it.

The problem is in assuming that Humes was on the level at all times.
The evidence says he was under orders from the time the body arrived at
the morgue at 6:35pm.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-31 20:17:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot
Post by bigdog
The autopsy team suspected by the time the autopsy was completed that a
tracheostomy had been performed over the exit wound which is why they
originally didn't think there had been one. Humes wanted to verify that
with Dr. Perry directly and that conversation took place the following
morning. There had been conversations between Parkland and Bethesda during
the autopsy but Saturday morning is when Humes spoke directly to Perry.
You can't cite a single witness who said Humes spoke directly to Perry the
previous night.
WRONG as usual! Your lack of knowledge about this case leads you
into trouble often. Here are 3 witnesses proving that Humes knew the day
of the murder that a tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound in the
throat.
1. Dr. Livingston - http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
2. Dr. Ebersole
"After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole,
MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, ???Ebersole had told me
during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound
from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he
had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy
??? that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that
intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound ???
corresponding to the back entrance wound ??? was
solved.???[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two
hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm
3. Nurse Audrey Bell -
"Given permission, she continues, ???Saturday morning when I got
over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of
course he had been primary until Dr. Clark came ??? He sat down in a
chair. I said, ???You look awful. Did you get any sleep last
night???? And he said, ???Well, not too much between the calls
from Bethesda that came in during the night.??? I said,
???What about???? He said, ???Oh. Whether that was an
entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat.??? He said,
???They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance
wound.?????? [31] Nurse Bell clarifies that her exchange with
Dr. Perry occurred in the morning, before he decamped just after the
Saturday press conference, during which he was silent after telling Dr.
Kemp Clark what Humes had told him, and asking Clark to take over for him
to avoid having to lie at the Saturday afternoon press conference. Chalk
up another perjury for Humes, who testified that he did not discuss the
results of the autopsy with Dr. Perry. [32] The frosting on the cover-up
cake may now be tasted. Perry talked to Humes on Friday and told him that
the throat wound was an entrance wound, as did Dr. Livingston, and almost
certainly others."
From: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html
Humes knew about the tracheostomy during the autopsy. Try and get it
right next time.
Try reading for comprehension next time. I stated that the autopsy team
suspected during the autopsy that the tracheostomy incision had been
performed over the bullet hole but that wasn't confirmed until the next
morning when Humes spoke directly to Perry. None of the witnesses you have
cited refutes that. Livingston did not claim to have told Humes that the
tracheostomy incision had been performed over the bullet hole because he
had no way of knowing that. You didn't quote Ebersole, you quoted Mantik
but even he doesn't tell us Humes spoke to Perry the night of the autopsy.
Bell did not say Humes and Perry spoke to each other on Friday night
either. Not only did you not comprehend what I wrote, you failed to
comprehend what the people you cited said either.
WRONG! I have Ebersole's words from his testimony. Looks like you
"Dr. EBERSOLE. Somewhere in the course of the evening Dr. Humes received
information from Dallas re the procedures that had been carried out there,
number one. Number two, somewhere in the course of the evening Dallas sent
to us the bony fragments you saw which were X rayed as to how this was
carried out. The mechanics I don't know. Somewhere in the course of the
autopsy Dr. Humes was made aware of the surgical procedures at Dallas
vis-a-vis the neck.
Mr. PURDY. And what was that information?
Dr. EBERSOLE. The information was that there had been a wound of exit there,
a tracheotomy and a suturing done."
From: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ebersole.htm
You are quoting Ebersole here. You quoted Mantik in your previous post,
not Ebersole. In neither version does Ebersole say Humes spoke to Perry on
Friday night. Nobody has said that.
Post by mainframetech
Now Livingston had a way of knowing things, called a telephone,
Do you have any evidence Livingston spoke by phone to anybody at Parkland?
Didn't think so. Why would just assume such a conversation took place? Oh,
that's right. You need that to be true for you theories to hold water.
Post by mainframetech
but
his video said he told Humes that there was a bullet entrance near to the
tracheotomy. It was enough for Humes to figure out that they overlapped
once he saw the throat. However, here are the words also of Dr. Perry at
"Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations
with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital?
Dr. PERRY - Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - When did that conversation occur?
Dr. PERRY - My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in
doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but
I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have an independent recollection at this moment as to
whether it was on Friday or Saturday?
Dr. PERRY - No, sir; I have thought about it again and the events surrounding
that weekend were very kaleidoscopic, and I talked with Dr. Humes on two
occasions, separated by a very short interval of, I think it was, 30 minutes
or an hour or so, it could have been a little longer.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the medium of your conversation?
Dr. PERRY - Over the telephone.
Mr. SPECTER - Did he identify himself to you as Dr. Humes of Bethesda?
Dr. PERRY - He did.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you state as specifically as you can recollect the
conversation that you first had with him?
Dr. PERRY - He advised me that he could not discuss with me the findings of
necropsy, that he had a few questions he would like to clarify. The initial
phone call was in relation to my doing a tracheotomy. Since I had made the
incision directly through the wound in the neck, it made it difficult for
them to ascertain the exact nature of this wound. Of course, that did not
occur to me at the time."
Note that Perry's first impression was that he spoke with Humes Friday
night, but it sounds like someone told him it was Saturday later.
If Perry had a clear recollection of speaking to Humes on Friday night, he
wouldn't have needed anyone to tell him when that conversation occurred. I
have no doubt that Perry spoke to someone at Bethesda on Friday night but
there is no testimony from anyone that it was Humes he spoke to. Whomever
he spoke to, that would have been to confirm what the autopsy team already
suspected when the traced the track of the tissue damage from the back
wound to the trachea, that a tracheostomy had obliterated the exit wound.
That solved the puzzle for why they had an entrance wound with no apparent
exit and no bullet in the body. Once Perry confirmed what they already
suspected, they had their exit wound.
Post by mainframetech
The third person was Nurse Audrey Bell, who heard the complaints of
DR. Perry, who aid he was getting calls from Humes at night. So that fits
with Perry's first impression.
Why do you keep twisting the words of the witnesses you cite. Audrey Bell
did NOT say Perry told her he talked to Humes the night before. He told
her he had talked to someone at Bethesda. Her testimony does not indicate
that someone was Humes. That was your insertion to misrepresent what Bell
actually said. Why do you continually have to modify what witnesses have
said to try to make your theories hold water?
BD this statement is simply not, in my opinion, supported by the evidence.
You wrote: '[T]hat would have been to confirm what the autopsy team
already suspected when the traced the track of the tissue damage from the
back wound to the trachea..."
Where is the evidence they "suspected" this? The evidence for me indicates
they - Humes et al. - gave up trying to figure out where the bullet went.
From Humes and Boswell's JAMA interview: "The second bullet was more of a
puzzle. 'If we made a mistake,' Humes says, 'it was in NOT calling Dallas
before we started the autopsy. Our information from Parkland Hospital in
Dallas before we started the autopsy was zero.'
Humes again: "The tracheostomy was a gaping wound, about 3 to 4 centimere
around, and we didn't think of it as an exit wound... We also noted
damages to the neck muscles, trachea, and pleura, but there was no bullet.
It was bothering me very greatly, like nothing you can imagine, that we
could find neither the second bullet nor its track. 'J' and I both knew
that bullets can do funny things in the body and we thought it might have
deflected down to the extremities."
Key statement by Humes: "By midnight, we decided it was time to quit
speculating about the second bullet, and I am very comfortable with this
decision....By midnight our task was done - it was perfectly obvious what
had killed the man. The second bullet was important, but not of overriding
importance. WE KNEW THAT WE WOULD FIND THE EXPLANATION SOONER OR LATER."
Glose enough for government work.
It's not as if they had a crime to solved and needed evidence.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
It's clear from Humes' own words that they didn't know - or even suspect -
that the tracheostomy covered a bullet wound.
Full JAMA piece is here: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md22/html/Image00.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-25 01:27:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Humes lied when he said that he learned about the tracheostomy on
Saturday morning. He needed an excuse for why he had burned his notes,
which was not supposed to be done. The notes were to be saved in all
cases. Here's the proof that Humes knew DURING the autopsy or before,
http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
As well, Dr. Ebersole (radiologist) spoke about knowing DURING the
The autopsy team suspected by the time the autopsy was completed that a
tracheostomy had been performed over the exit wound which is why they
originally didn't think there had been one. Humes wanted to verify that
with Dr. Perry directly and that conversation took place the following
morning. There had been conversations between Parkland and Bethesda during
the autopsy but Saturday morning is when Humes spoke directly to Perry.
You can't cite a single witness who said Humes spoke directly to Perry the
previous night.
WRONG as usual! Your lack of knowledge about this case leads you
into trouble often. Here are 3 witnesses proving that Humes knew the day
of the murder that a tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound in the
throat.
1. Dr. Livingston - http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Livingston.txt
Post by mainframetech
2. Dr. Ebersole
"After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole,
MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, “Ebersole had told me
during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound
from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he
had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy
– that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that
intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound –
corresponding to the back entrance wound – was
solved.”[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two
hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm
3. Nurse Audrey Bell -
"Given permission, she continues, “Saturday morning when I got
over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of
course he had been primary until Dr. Clark came … He sat down in a
chair. I said, ‘You look awful. Did you get any sleep last
night?’ And he said, ‘Well, not too much between the calls
from Bethesda that came in during the night.’ I said,
‘What about?’ He said, ‘Oh. Whether that was an
entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat.’ He said,
‘They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance
wound.’” [31] Nurse Bell clarifies that her exchange with
Dr. Perry occurred in the morning, before he decamped just after the
Saturday press conference, during which he was silent after telling Dr.
Kemp Clark what Humes had told him, and asking Clark to take over for him
to avoid having to lie at the Saturday afternoon press conference. Chalk
up another perjury for Humes, who testified that he did not discuss the
results of the autopsy with Dr. Perry. [32] The frosting on the cover-up
cake may now be tasted. Perry talked to Humes on Friday and told him that
the throat wound was an entrance wound, as did Dr. Livingston, and almost
certainly others."
From: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html
Humes knew about the tracheostomy during the autopsy. Try and get it
right next time.
If he did, why didn't he just reach the inevitable conclusion: a shot
from behind had exited the throat?
There's something naughty about just jumping to conclusions without
proving them with facts.
Remember, Humes knew there was an entrance wound in the back (it had
an abrasion collar), and he knew there was no bullet in the body.
So knowing that the tracheotomy covered a throat wound would have
simply allowed him to reach the same conclusion earlier.
Duh! are you sure Humes was QUALIFIED to reach that conclusion?
Ice Bullet? Really, dude? Would YOU have said that?
Would anyone here say that?
Bueller?
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mainframetech
2018-07-25 01:41:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Humes lied when he said that he learned about the tracheostomy on
Saturday morning. He needed an excuse for why he had burned his notes,
which was not supposed to be done. The notes were to be saved in all
cases. Here's the proof that Humes knew DURING the autopsy or before,
http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
As well, Dr. Ebersole (radiologist) spoke about knowing DURING the
The autopsy team suspected by the time the autopsy was completed that a
tracheostomy had been performed over the exit wound which is why they
originally didn't think there had been one. Humes wanted to verify that
with Dr. Perry directly and that conversation took place the following
morning. There had been conversations between Parkland and Bethesda during
the autopsy but Saturday morning is when Humes spoke directly to Perry.
You can't cite a single witness who said Humes spoke directly to Perry the
previous night.
WRONG as usual! Your lack of knowledge about this case leads you
into trouble often. Here are 3 witnesses proving that Humes knew the day
of the murder that a tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound in the
throat.
1. Dr. Livingston - http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Livingston.txt
Post by mainframetech
2. Dr. Ebersole
"After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole,
MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, “Ebersole had told me
during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound
from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he
had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy
– that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that
intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound –
corresponding to the back entrance wound – was
solved.”[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two
hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm
3. Nurse Audrey Bell -
"Given permission, she continues, “Saturday morning when I got
over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of
course he had been primary until Dr. Clark came … He sat down in a
chair. I said, ‘You look awful. Did you get any sleep last
night?’ And he said, ‘Well, not too much between the calls
from Bethesda that came in during the night.’ I said,
‘What about?’ He said, ‘Oh. Whether that was an
entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat.’ He said,
‘They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance
wound.’” [31] Nurse Bell clarifies that her exchange with
Dr. Perry occurred in the morning, before he decamped just after the
Saturday press conference, during which he was silent after telling Dr.
Kemp Clark what Humes had told him, and asking Clark to take over for him
to avoid having to lie at the Saturday afternoon press conference. Chalk
up another perjury for Humes, who testified that he did not discuss the
results of the autopsy with Dr. Perry. [32] The frosting on the cover-up
cake may now be tasted. Perry talked to Humes on Friday and told him that
the throat wound was an entrance wound, as did Dr. Livingston, and almost
certainly others."
From: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html
Humes knew about the tracheostomy during the autopsy. Try and get it
right next time.
If he did, why didn't he just reach the inevitable conclusion: a shot
from behind had exited the throat?
Remember, Humes knew there was an entrance wound in the back (it had
an abrasion collar), and he knew there was no bullet in the body.
So knowing that the tracheotomy covered a throat wound would have
simply allowed him to reach the same conclusion earlier.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
The story including the extra text about the 'neighboring wound' might
just as easily have prompted Humes to think of the tracheotomy going over
the bullet wound, but I produced 3 witnesses, of which Livingston was only
one. Dr. Ebersole was witness to the phone call to Perry at Parkland, and
it actually stopped him from, doing certain things that he was about to
do. As well, Nurse Audrey Bell heard it from Dr. Perry himself that he
had been up all night answering Humes from Bethesda who was trying to get
him to change his conclusion to an exit instead of an entrance in the
throat.

The evidence says it was an entrance in the throat, and seeing inside
the body with the organs removed told onlookers that the back wound bullet
did NOT traverse the body and come out the throat. Even the Autopsy
Report (AR) stated that the "pleura was intact". The bullet could NOT go
through without tearing or puncturing tissue. The bullet also did NOT 'go
around' the pleura. Bullets go through things, they don't take a curve
and go around them. The bullet did NOT come out the throat wound, and the
SBT is dead. As one of the autopsy team members said, it was a 'short
shot', where something defective in the bullet or the weapon caused the
bullet to strike with much less than normal impact and not penetrate but
an inch or so into JFK's back.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-26 01:48:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Humes lied when he said that he learned about the tracheostomy on
Saturday morning. He needed an excuse for why he had burned his notes,
which was not supposed to be done. The notes were to be saved in all
cases. Here's the proof that Humes knew DURING the autopsy or before,
http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
As well, Dr. Ebersole (radiologist) spoke about knowing DURING the
The autopsy team suspected by the time the autopsy was completed that a
tracheostomy had been performed over the exit wound which is why they
originally didn't think there had been one. Humes wanted to verify that
with Dr. Perry directly and that conversation took place the following
morning. There had been conversations between Parkland and Bethesda during
the autopsy but Saturday morning is when Humes spoke directly to Perry.
You can't cite a single witness who said Humes spoke directly to Perry the
previous night.
WRONG as usual! Your lack of knowledge about this case leads you
into trouble often. Here are 3 witnesses proving that Humes knew the day
of the murder that a tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound in the
throat.
1. Dr. Livingston - http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Livingston.txt
Post by mainframetech
2. Dr. Ebersole
"After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole,
MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, “Ebersole had told me
during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound
from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he
had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy
– that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that
intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound –
corresponding to the back entrance wound – was
solved.”[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two
hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm
3. Nurse Audrey Bell -
"Given permission, she continues, “Saturday morning when I got
over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of
course he had been primary until Dr. Clark came … He sat down in a
chair. I said, ‘You look awful. Did you get any sleep last
night?’ And he said, ‘Well, not too much between the calls
from Bethesda that came in during the night.’ I said,
‘What about?’ He said, ‘Oh. Whether that was an
entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat.’ He said,
‘They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance
wound.’” [31] Nurse Bell clarifies that her exchange with
Dr. Perry occurred in the morning, before he decamped just after the
Saturday press conference, during which he was silent after telling Dr.
Kemp Clark what Humes had told him, and asking Clark to take over for him
to avoid having to lie at the Saturday afternoon press conference. Chalk
up another perjury for Humes, who testified that he did not discuss the
results of the autopsy with Dr. Perry. [32] The frosting on the cover-up
cake may now be tasted. Perry talked to Humes on Friday and told him that
the throat wound was an entrance wound, as did Dr. Livingston, and almost
certainly others."
From: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html
Humes knew about the tracheostomy during the autopsy. Try and get it
right next time.
If he did, why didn't he just reach the inevitable conclusion: a shot
from behind had exited the throat?
Remember, Humes knew there was an entrance wound in the back (it had
an abrasion collar), and he knew there was no bullet in the body.
So knowing that the tracheotomy covered a throat wound would have
simply allowed him to reach the same conclusion earlier.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
The story including the extra text about the 'neighboring wound' might
just as easily have prompted Humes to think of the tracheotomy going over
the bullet wound, but I produced 3 witnesses, of which Livingston was only
one. Dr. Ebersole was witness to the phone call to Perry at Parkland, and
it actually stopped him from, doing certain things that he was about to
do.
Ebersole never said Humes talked to Perry on Friday night. You are making
that up.
Post by mainframetech
As well, Nurse Audrey Bell heard it from Dr. Perry himself that he
had been up all night answering Humes from Bethesda who was trying to get
him to change his conclusion to an exit instead of an entrance in the
throat.
You are making more stuff up. Bell did not say that Perry told her he
spoke to Humes. He said he was talking to people at Bethesda. Why do you
continually twist the facts when you have been corrected on this point
numerous times?
Post by mainframetech
The evidence says it was an entrance in the throat,
No such evidence exists.
Post by mainframetech
and seeing inside
the body with the organs removed told onlookers that the back wound bullet
did NOT traverse the body and come out the throat.
So no you turn to the techies to determine what the autopsy showed. How
silly.
Post by mainframetech
Even the Autopsy
Report (AR) stated that the "pleura was intact". The bullet could NOT go
through without tearing or puncturing tissue.
That's right. It went above the pleura which is why the pleura was
contused and not perforated.
Post by mainframetech
The bullet also did NOT 'go around' the pleura.
That's true. It passed just above it.
Post by mainframetech
Bullets go through things, they don't take a curve
and go around them.
Actually bullets do curve when passing through tissue but that's not why
the bullet did strike the pleura. It passed above it but close enough to
cause the bruise.
Post by mainframetech
The bullet did NOT come out the throat wound, and the
SBT is dead.
Here is where you insert your opinion in place of all the knowledgeable
people who have said otherwise.
Post by mainframetech
As one of the autopsy team members said, it was a 'short
shot', where something defective in the bullet or the weapon caused the
bullet to strike with much less than normal impact and not penetrate but
an inch or so into JFK's back.
A techie said that and techies are not qualified to make judgements about
the medical evidence. Their job is to perform specific tasks to help the
people who are knowledgeable. The knowledgeable people concluded otherwise
but of course you opt for the unqualified opinion. It has been explained
to you that a short shot would not have had the velocity to reach the
target. That's why it's called a short shot. It falls short of the target.
You've never been able to explain your way around that inconvenient fact
so you just ignore it.
mainframetech
2018-07-27 01:02:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Humes lied when he said that he learned about the tracheostomy on
Saturday morning. He needed an excuse for why he had burned his notes,
which was not supposed to be done. The notes were to be saved in all
cases. Here's the proof that Humes knew DURING the autopsy or before,
http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
As well, Dr. Ebersole (radiologist) spoke about knowing DURING the
The autopsy team suspected by the time the autopsy was completed that a
tracheostomy had been performed over the exit wound which is why they
originally didn't think there had been one. Humes wanted to verify that
with Dr. Perry directly and that conversation took place the following
morning. There had been conversations between Parkland and Bethesda during
the autopsy but Saturday morning is when Humes spoke directly to Perry.
You can't cite a single witness who said Humes spoke directly to Perry the
previous night.
WRONG as usual! Your lack of knowledge about this case leads you
into trouble often. Here are 3 witnesses proving that Humes knew the day
of the murder that a tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound in the
throat.
1. Dr. Livingston - http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Livingston.txt
Post by mainframetech
2. Dr. Ebersole
"After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole,
MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, “Ebersole had told me
during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound
from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he
had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy
– that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that
intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound –
corresponding to the back entrance wound – was
solved.”[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two
hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm
3. Nurse Audrey Bell -
"Given permission, she continues, “Saturday morning when I got
over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of
course he had been primary until Dr. Clark came … He sat down in a
chair. I said, ‘You look awful. Did you get any sleep last
night?’ And he said, ‘Well, not too much between the calls
from Bethesda that came in during the night.’ I said,
‘What about?’ He said, ‘Oh. Whether that was an
entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat.’ He said,
‘They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance
wound.’” [31] Nurse Bell clarifies that her exchange with
Dr. Perry occurred in the morning, before he decamped just after the
Saturday press conference, during which he was silent after telling Dr.
Kemp Clark what Humes had told him, and asking Clark to take over for him
to avoid having to lie at the Saturday afternoon press conference. Chalk
up another perjury for Humes, who testified that he did not discuss the
results of the autopsy with Dr. Perry. [32] The frosting on the cover-up
cake may now be tasted. Perry talked to Humes on Friday and told him that
the throat wound was an entrance wound, as did Dr. Livingston, and almost
certainly others."
From: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html
Humes knew about the tracheostomy during the autopsy. Try and get it
right next time.
If he did, why didn't he just reach the inevitable conclusion: a shot
from behind had exited the throat?
Remember, Humes knew there was an entrance wound in the back (it had
an abrasion collar), and he knew there was no bullet in the body.
So knowing that the tracheotomy covered a throat wound would have
simply allowed him to reach the same conclusion earlier.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
The story including the extra text about the 'neighboring wound' might
just as easily have prompted Humes to think of the tracheotomy going over
the bullet wound, but I produced 3 witnesses, of which Livingston was only
one. Dr. Ebersole was witness to the phone call to Perry at Parkland, and
it actually stopped him from, doing certain things that he was about to
do.
Ebersole never said Humes talked to Perry on Friday night. You are making
that up.
WRONG sucker! In a previous post I gave you the words form Ebersole's
testimony. You'll never learn.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
As well, Nurse Audrey Bell heard it from Dr. Perry himself that he
had been up all night answering Humes from Bethesda who was trying to get
him to change his conclusion to an exit instead of an entrance in the
throat.
You are making more stuff up. Bell did not say that Perry told her he
spoke to Humes. He said he was talking to people at Bethesda. Why do you
continually twist the facts when you have been corrected on this point
numerous times?
Who do you think Perry would talk to doing an autopsy on JFK? Don't
give me your dismissive crap.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The evidence says it was an entrance in the throat,
No such evidence exists.
Well now, of course it does! Where do you get these weird ideas? The
wound was described as stellate and punctate, both suggesting an entrance
hole that had been 'punched inward'. Why do you suppose Perry and others
originally thought the wound was an entrance?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and seeing inside
the body with the organs removed told onlookers that the back wound bullet
did NOT traverse the body and come out the throat.
So no you turn to the techies to determine what the autopsy showed. How
silly.
WRONG again! They didn't determine anything. They simply told me
what they saw.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Even the Autopsy
Report (AR) stated that the "pleura was intact". The bullet could NOT go
through without tearing or puncturing tissue.
That's right. It went above the pleura which is why the pleura was
contused and not perforated.
FALSE! More disinformation! The bullet struck an inch into the pleura
and lung, and there was no way a bullet was going to then 'go around' any
organs. Bullets plow through organs, and make tears and punctures, they
don't stand up and hop around obstacles.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The bullet also did NOT 'go around' the pleura.
That's true. It passed just above it.
FALSE! The bullet struck an inch into the pleura and lung at the
least, and Jenkins saw that it struck the middle lobe and not the top
lobe.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Bullets go through things, they don't take a curve
and go around them.
Actually bullets do curve when passing through tissue but that's not why
the bullet did strike the pleura. It passed above it but close enough to
cause the bruise.
FALSE! You won't get away with that false information. See above.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The bullet did NOT come out the throat wound, and the
SBT is dead.
Here is where you insert your opinion in place of all the knowledgeable
people who have said otherwise.
Not one of your knowledgeable people saw anything in the body except
the autopsy team. And some of them were under orders to fake the Autopsy
Report (AR). Every one of the medical panels saw nothing in the body
where the proof was, and it now is looking like they were fed bad info.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
As one of the autopsy team members said, it was a 'short
shot', where something defective in the bullet or the weapon caused the
bullet to strike with much less than normal impact and not penetrate but
an inch or so into JFK's back.
A techie said that and techies are not qualified to make judgements about
the medical evidence.
Stop the bullshit! No Technologist made any determination or
judgment, they merely described what they saw. Which told us everything.
A short shot is a known factor seen now and then. It's like shoe, when
you see one, you may look, a shoe. It's a known factor.
Post by bigdog
Their job is to perform specific tasks to help the
people who are knowledgeable. The knowledgeable people concluded otherwise
but of course you opt for the unqualified opinion. It has been explained
to you that a short shot would not have had the velocity to reach the
target. That's why it's called a short shot. It falls short of the target.
You've never been able to explain your way around that inconvenient fact
so you just ignore it.
KNOCK OFF THE CRAP! No one used the opinions of technologists, only
what they saw, which was enough. You keep trying to say that, probably
because your story is so weak other wise.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-28 03:52:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Humes lied when he said that he learned about the tracheostomy on
Saturday morning. He needed an excuse for why he had burned his notes,
which was not supposed to be done. The notes were to be saved in all
cases. Here's the proof that Humes knew DURING the autopsy or before,
http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
As well, Dr. Ebersole (radiologist) spoke about knowing DURING the
The autopsy team suspected by the time the autopsy was completed that a
tracheostomy had been performed over the exit wound which is why they
originally didn't think there had been one. Humes wanted to verify that
with Dr. Perry directly and that conversation took place the following
morning. There had been conversations between Parkland and Bethesda during
the autopsy but Saturday morning is when Humes spoke directly to Perry.
You can't cite a single witness who said Humes spoke directly to Perry the
previous night.
WRONG as usual! Your lack of knowledge about this case leads you
into trouble often. Here are 3 witnesses proving that Humes knew the day
of the murder that a tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound in the
throat.
1. Dr. Livingston - http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Livingston.txt
Post by mainframetech
2. Dr. Ebersole
"After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole,
MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, “Ebersole had told me
during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound
from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he
had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy
– that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that
intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound –
corresponding to the back entrance wound – was
solved.”[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two
hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm
3. Nurse Audrey Bell -
"Given permission, she continues, “Saturday morning when I got
over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of
course he had been primary until Dr. Clark came … He sat down in a
chair. I said, ‘You look awful. Did you get any sleep last
night?’ And he said, ‘Well, not too much between the calls
from Bethesda that came in during the night.’ I said,
‘What about?’ He said, ‘Oh. Whether that was an
entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat.’ He said,
‘They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance
wound.’” [31] Nurse Bell clarifies that her exchange with
Dr. Perry occurred in the morning, before he decamped just after the
Saturday press conference, during which he was silent after telling Dr.
Kemp Clark what Humes had told him, and asking Clark to take over for him
to avoid having to lie at the Saturday afternoon press conference. Chalk
up another perjury for Humes, who testified that he did not discuss the
results of the autopsy with Dr. Perry. [32] The frosting on the cover-up
cake may now be tasted. Perry talked to Humes on Friday and told him that
the throat wound was an entrance wound, as did Dr. Livingston, and almost
certainly others."
From: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html
Humes knew about the tracheostomy during the autopsy. Try and get it
right next time.
If he did, why didn't he just reach the inevitable conclusion: a shot
from behind had exited the throat?
Remember, Humes knew there was an entrance wound in the back (it had
an abrasion collar), and he knew there was no bullet in the body.
So knowing that the tracheotomy covered a throat wound would have
simply allowed him to reach the same conclusion earlier.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
The story including the extra text about the 'neighboring wound' might
just as easily have prompted Humes to think of the tracheotomy going over
the bullet wound, but I produced 3 witnesses, of which Livingston was only
one. Dr. Ebersole was witness to the phone call to Perry at Parkland, and
it actually stopped him from, doing certain things that he was about to
do.
Ebersole never said Humes talked to Perry on Friday night. You are making
that up.
WRONG sucker! In a previous post I gave you the words form Ebersole's
testimony. You'll never learn.
Yes you did and in those words, you will never find Ebersole saying Humes
spoke to Perry on Friday night. That was your addition to Ebersole's
statement. If I am wrong, you could easily prove me wrong by simply
quoting the line in which Ebersole said Humes spoke directly to Perry but
we both know you won't do that because you can't. Anyone reading this
thread knows that too.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
As well, Nurse Audrey Bell heard it from Dr. Perry himself that he
had been up all night answering Humes from Bethesda who was trying to get
him to change his conclusion to an exit instead of an entrance in the
throat.
You are making more stuff up. Bell did not say that Perry told her he
spoke to Humes. He said he was talking to people at Bethesda. Why do you
continually twist the facts when you have been corrected on this point
numerous times?
Who do you think Perry would talk to doing an autopsy on JFK? Don't
give me your dismissive crap.
So you admit you are just assuming Perry talked to Humes. There were two
other pathologists on the team whom he could have spoken to as well as
Ebersole. Since you think so highly of your two techies, maybe he spoke to
one of them but I seriously doubt that.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The evidence says it was an entrance in the throat,
No such evidence exists.
Well now, of course it does! Where do you get these weird ideas? The
wound was described as stellate and punctate, both suggesting an entrance
hole that had been 'punched inward'. Why do you suppose Perry and others
originally thought the wound was an entrance?
Whether a bullet is entering or exiting, if it has not deformed it will
make a neat little hole. Exit wounds are typically larger and more ragged
because lead is a soft metal that deforms easily even when striking soft
tissue. Copper FMJ bullets are specifically designed not to deform when
striking soft tissue so if they pass through a body without hitting bone,
they will make a neat little exit wound. Experienced forensic pathologists
know an entry wound has an abrasion collar but an ER doctor might not be
aware of that. That's not his job.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and seeing inside
the body with the organs removed told onlookers that the back wound bullet
did NOT traverse the body and come out the throat.
So no you turn to the techies to determine what the autopsy showed. How
silly.
WRONG again! They didn't determine anything. They simply told me
what they saw.
What they saw didn't indicate a non-transiting bullet. That was just their
interpretation based on their lack of training in forensic medicine.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Even the Autopsy
Report (AR) stated that the "pleura was intact". The bullet could NOT go
through without tearing or puncturing tissue.
That's right. It went above the pleura which is why the pleura was
contused and not perforated.
FALSE! More disinformation! The bullet struck an inch into the pleura
and lung, and there was no way a bullet was going to then 'go around' any
organs. Bullets plow through organs, and make tears and punctures, they
don't stand up and hop around obstacles.
So now you are pretending to know better than the pathologists who
performed the autopsy and the review panels who saw so much more evidence
than you have. None of the leaked photos show the bruised pleura so you
can't have seen that tissue damage yet you presume to know things you
couldn't possibly know. Pay attention this time and write this down so you
don't forget it. The bullet did not go around the pleura. It passed just
above but close enough that the pressure cavity caused bruising of the
surrounding tissue. I've cited an article by someone knowledgeable in
forensic medicine that explains that very simple concept. It's amazing you
have so much trouble comprehending it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The bullet also did NOT 'go around' the pleura.
That's true. It passed just above it.
FALSE! The bullet struck an inch into the pleura and lung at the
least, and Jenkins saw that it struck the middle lobe and not the top
lobe.
So you take Jenkins word rather than the more knowledgeable pathologists.
Typical.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Bullets go through things, they don't take a curve
and go around them.
Actually bullets do curve when passing through tissue but that's not why
the bullet did strike the pleura. It passed above it but close enough to
cause the bruise.
FALSE! You won't get away with that false information. See above.
The false information is all coming from you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The bullet did NOT come out the throat wound, and the
SBT is dead.
Here is where you insert your opinion in place of all the knowledgeable
people who have said otherwise.
Not one of your knowledgeable people saw anything in the body except
the autopsy team. And some of them were under orders to fake the Autopsy
Report (AR). Every one of the medical panels saw nothing in the body
where the proof was, and it now is looking like they were fed bad info.
Because the most knowledgeable people on team reached findings that
conflict with what you would rather believe, you make the ridiculous
assumption that they were ordered to lie about their findings rather than
modifying your beliefs to fit the evidence they provided. Also typical.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
As one of the autopsy team members said, it was a 'short
shot', where something defective in the bullet or the weapon caused the
bullet to strike with much less than normal impact and not penetrate but
an inch or so into JFK's back.
A techie said that and techies are not qualified to make judgements about
the medical evidence.
Stop the bullshit! No Technologist made any determination or
judgment, they merely described what they saw. Which told us everything.
A short shot is a known factor seen now and then. It's like shoe, when
you see one, you may look, a shoe. It's a known factor.
Why do you think it's called a short shot? It's a simple concept. It is
called a short shot because it lacks the velocity to hold its trajectory
before gravity has caused it to fall well short of the target. Short shots
do not hit the intended target because they can't. Simple physics here.
Why do you have such a hard time understanding that?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Their job is to perform specific tasks to help the
people who are knowledgeable. The knowledgeable people concluded otherwise
but of course you opt for the unqualified opinion. It has been explained
to you that a short shot would not have had the velocity to reach the
target. That's why it's called a short shot. It falls short of the target.
You've never been able to explain your way around that inconvenient fact
so you just ignore it.
KNOCK OFF THE CRAP! No one used the opinions of technologists, only
what they saw, which was enough. You keep trying to say that, probably
because your story is so weak other wise.
So the pathologists said A and the techies said B and you like B better so
you choose to believe the techies. The pathologists told us what they saw
too but you don't like what they said they saw so instead you invent a
baseless story that they were ordered to lie.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-29 18:20:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Humes lied when he said that he learned about the tracheostomy on
Saturday morning. He needed an excuse for why he had burned his notes,
which was not supposed to be done. The notes were to be saved in all
cases. Here's the proof that Humes knew DURING the autopsy or before,
http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
As well, Dr. Ebersole (radiologist) spoke about knowing DURING the
The autopsy team suspected by the time the autopsy was completed that a
tracheostomy had been performed over the exit wound which is why they
originally didn't think there had been one. Humes wanted to verify that
with Dr. Perry directly and that conversation took place the following
morning. There had been conversations between Parkland and Bethesda during
the autopsy but Saturday morning is when Humes spoke directly to Perry.
You can't cite a single witness who said Humes spoke directly to Perry the
previous night.
WRONG as usual! Your lack of knowledge about this case leads you
into trouble often. Here are 3 witnesses proving that Humes knew the day
of the murder that a tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound in the
throat.
1. Dr. Livingston - http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Livingston.txt
Post by mainframetech
2. Dr. Ebersole
"After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole,
MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, ???Ebersole had told me
during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound
from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he
had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy
??? that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that
intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound ???
corresponding to the back entrance wound ??? was
solved.???[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two
hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm
3. Nurse Audrey Bell -
"Given permission, she continues, ???Saturday morning when I got
over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of
course he had been primary until Dr. Clark came ??? He sat down in a
chair. I said, ???You look awful. Did you get any sleep last
night???? And he said, ???Well, not too much between the calls
from Bethesda that came in during the night.??? I said,
???What about???? He said, ???Oh. Whether that was an
entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat.??? He said,
???They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance
wound.?????? [31] Nurse Bell clarifies that her exchange with
Dr. Perry occurred in the morning, before he decamped just after the
Saturday press conference, during which he was silent after telling Dr.
Kemp Clark what Humes had told him, and asking Clark to take over for him
to avoid having to lie at the Saturday afternoon press conference. Chalk
up another perjury for Humes, who testified that he did not discuss the
results of the autopsy with Dr. Perry. [32] The frosting on the cover-up
cake may now be tasted. Perry talked to Humes on Friday and told him that
the throat wound was an entrance wound, as did Dr. Livingston, and almost
certainly others."
From: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html
Humes knew about the tracheostomy during the autopsy. Try and get it
right next time.
If he did, why didn't he just reach the inevitable conclusion: a shot
from behind had exited the throat?
Remember, Humes knew there was an entrance wound in the back (it had
an abrasion collar), and he knew there was no bullet in the body.
So knowing that the tracheotomy covered a throat wound would have
simply allowed him to reach the same conclusion earlier.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
The story including the extra text about the 'neighboring wound' might
just as easily have prompted Humes to think of the tracheotomy going over
the bullet wound, but I produced 3 witnesses, of which Livingston was only
one. Dr. Ebersole was witness to the phone call to Perry at Parkland, and
it actually stopped him from, doing certain things that he was about to
do.
Ebersole never said Humes talked to Perry on Friday night. You are making
that up.
WRONG sucker! In a previous post I gave you the words form Ebersole's
testimony. You'll never learn.
Yes you did and in those words, you will never find Ebersole saying Humes
spoke to Perry on Friday night. That was your addition to Ebersole's
statement. If I am wrong, you could easily prove me wrong by simply
quoting the line in which Ebersole said Humes spoke directly to Perry but
we both know you won't do that because you can't. Anyone reading this
thread knows that too.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
As well, Nurse Audrey Bell heard it from Dr. Perry himself that he
had been up all night answering Humes from Bethesda who was trying to get
him to change his conclusion to an exit instead of an entrance in the
throat.
You are making more stuff up. Bell did not say that Perry told her he
spoke to Humes. He said he was talking to people at Bethesda. Why do you
continually twist the facts when you have been corrected on this point
numerous times?
Who do you think Perry would talk to doing an autopsy on JFK? Don't
give me your dismissive crap.
So you admit you are just assuming Perry talked to Humes. There were two
other pathologists on the team whom he could have spoken to as well as
Ebersole. Since you think so highly of your two techies, maybe he spoke to
one of them but I seriously doubt that.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The evidence says it was an entrance in the throat,
No such evidence exists.
Well now, of course it does! Where do you get these weird ideas? The
wound was described as stellate and punctate, both suggesting an entrance
hole that had been 'punched inward'. Why do you suppose Perry and others
originally thought the wound was an entrance?
Whether a bullet is entering or exiting, if it has not deformed it will
make a neat little hole. Exit wounds are typically larger and more ragged
because lead is a soft metal that deforms easily even when striking soft
tissue. Copper FMJ bullets are specifically designed not to deform when
striking soft tissue so if they pass through a body without hitting bone,
they will make a neat little exit wound. Experienced forensic pathologists
know an entry wound has an abrasion collar but an ER doctor might not be
aware of that. That's not his job.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and seeing inside
the body with the organs removed told onlookers that the back wound bullet
did NOT traverse the body and come out the throat.
So no you turn to the techies to determine what the autopsy showed. How
silly.
WRONG again! They didn't determine anything. They simply told me
what they saw.
What they saw didn't indicate a non-transiting bullet. That was just their
interpretation based on their lack of training in forensic medicine.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Even the Autopsy
Report (AR) stated that the "pleura was intact". The bullet could NOT go
through without tearing or puncturing tissue.
That's right. It went above the pleura which is why the pleura was
contused and not perforated.
FALSE! More disinformation! The bullet struck an inch into the pleura
and lung, and there was no way a bullet was going to then 'go around' any
organs. Bullets plow through organs, and make tears and punctures, they
don't stand up and hop around obstacles.
So now you are pretending to know better than the pathologists who
performed the autopsy and the review panels who saw so much more evidence
than you have. None of the leaked photos show the bruised pleura so you
can't have seen that tissue damage yet you presume to know things you
couldn't possibly know. Pay attention this time and write this down so you
don't forget it. The bullet did not go around the pleura. It passed just
above but close enough that the pressure cavity caused bruising of the
surrounding tissue. I've cited an article by someone knowledgeable in
forensic medicine that explains that very simple concept. It's amazing you
have so much trouble comprehending it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The bullet also did NOT 'go around' the pleura.
That's true. It passed just above it.
FALSE! The bullet struck an inch into the pleura and lung at the
least, and Jenkins saw that it struck the middle lobe and not the top
lobe.
So you take Jenkins word rather than the more knowledgeable pathologists.
Typical.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Bullets go through things, they don't take a curve
and go around them.
Actually bullets do curve when passing through tissue but that's not why
the bullet did strike the pleura. It passed above it but close enough to
cause the bruise.
FALSE! You won't get away with that false information. See above.
The false information is all coming from you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The bullet did NOT come out the throat wound, and the
SBT is dead.
Here is where you insert your opinion in place of all the knowledgeable
people who have said otherwise.
Not one of your knowledgeable people saw anything in the body except
the autopsy team. And some of them were under orders to fake the Autopsy
Report (AR). Every one of the medical panels saw nothing in the body
where the proof was, and it now is looking like they were fed bad info.
Because the most knowledgeable people on team reached findings that
conflict with what you would rather believe, you make the ridiculous
assumption that they were ordered to lie about their findings rather than
modifying your beliefs to fit the evidence they provided. Also typical.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
As one of the autopsy team members said, it was a 'short
shot', where something defective in the bullet or the weapon caused the
bullet to strike with much less than normal impact and not penetrate but
an inch or so into JFK's back.
A techie said that and techies are not qualified to make judgements about
the medical evidence.
Stop the bullshit! No Technologist made any determination or
judgment, they merely described what they saw. Which told us everything.
A short shot is a known factor seen now and then. It's like shoe, when
you see one, you may look, a shoe. It's a known factor.
Why do you think it's called a short shot? It's a simple concept. It is
called a short shot because it lacks the velocity to hold its trajectory
before gravity has caused it to fall well short of the target. Short shots
do not hit the intended target because they can't. Simple physics here.
Why do you have such a hard time understanding that?
Then you are talking about a different gun. Oswald's rifle never fired
short shots. The only lower velocity than normal was a foulding shot, and
that only got down to 1861 fps, too fast to just stop in the body.

Loading Image...
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Their job is to perform specific tasks to help the
people who are knowledgeable. The knowledgeable people concluded otherwise
but of course you opt for the unqualified opinion. It has been explained
to you that a short shot would not have had the velocity to reach the
target. That's why it's called a short shot. It falls short of the target.
You've never been able to explain your way around that inconvenient fact
so you just ignore it.
KNOCK OFF THE CRAP! No one used the opinions of technologists, only
what they saw, which was enough. You keep trying to say that, probably
because your story is so weak other wise.
So the pathologists said A and the techies said B and you like B better so
you choose to believe the techies. The pathologists told us what they saw
too but you don't like what they said they saw so instead you invent a
baseless story that they were ordered to lie.
So you believe Humes when he said it was an ICE BULLET? Can you sell me
one or are they only on E-bay?

If you keep using Argument by Authority, you are stuck with the stupidity
of YOUR expert.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-28 12:26:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Humes lied when he said that he learned about the tracheostomy on
Saturday morning. He needed an excuse for why he had burned his notes,
which was not supposed to be done. The notes were to be saved in all
cases. Here's the proof that Humes knew DURING the autopsy or before,
http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
As well, Dr. Ebersole (radiologist) spoke about knowing DURING the
The autopsy team suspected by the time the autopsy was completed that a
tracheostomy had been performed over the exit wound which is why they
They weren't sure it was an exit wound.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
originally didn't think there had been one. Humes wanted to verify that
with Dr. Perry directly and that conversation took place the following
morning. There had been conversations between Parkland and Bethesda during
the autopsy but Saturday morning is when Humes spoke directly to Perry.
You can't cite a single witness who said Humes spoke directly to Perry the
previous night.
WRONG as usual! Your lack of knowledge about this case leads you
into trouble often. Here are 3 witnesses proving that Humes knew the day
of the murder that a tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound in the
throat.
1. Dr. Livingston - http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Livingston.txt
Post by mainframetech
2. Dr. Ebersole
"After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole,
MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, ???Ebersole had told me
during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound
from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he
had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy
??? that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that
intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound ???
corresponding to the back entrance wound ??? was
solved.???[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two
hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm
3. Nurse Audrey Bell -
"Given permission, she continues, ???Saturday morning when I got
over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of
course he had been primary until Dr. Clark came ??? He sat down in a
chair. I said, ???You look awful. Did you get any sleep last
night???? And he said, ???Well, not too much between the calls
from Bethesda that came in during the night.??? I said,
???What about???? He said, ???Oh. Whether that was an
entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat.??? He said,
???They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance
wound.?????? [31] Nurse Bell clarifies that her exchange with
Dr. Perry occurred in the morning, before he decamped just after the
Saturday press conference, during which he was silent after telling Dr.
Kemp Clark what Humes had told him, and asking Clark to take over for him
to avoid having to lie at the Saturday afternoon press conference. Chalk
up another perjury for Humes, who testified that he did not discuss the
results of the autopsy with Dr. Perry. [32] The frosting on the cover-up
cake may now be tasted. Perry talked to Humes on Friday and told him that
the throat wound was an entrance wound, as did Dr. Livingston, and almost
certainly others."
From: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html
Humes knew about the tracheostomy during the autopsy. Try and get it
right next time.
If he did, why didn't he just reach the inevitable conclusion: a shot
from behind had exited the throat?
Remember, Humes knew there was an entrance wound in the back (it had
an abrasion collar), and he knew there was no bullet in the body.
So knowing that the tracheotomy covered a throat wound would have
simply allowed him to reach the same conclusion earlier.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
The story including the extra text about the 'neighboring wound' might
just as easily have prompted Humes to think of the tracheotomy going over
the bullet wound, but I produced 3 witnesses, of which Livingston was only
one. Dr. Ebersole was witness to the phone call to Perry at Parkland, and
it actually stopped him from, doing certain things that he was about to
do.
Ebersole never said Humes talked to Perry on Friday night. You are making
that up.
WRONG sucker! In a previous post I gave you the words form Ebersole's
testimony. You'll never learn.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
As well, Nurse Audrey Bell heard it from Dr. Perry himself that he
had been up all night answering Humes from Bethesda who was trying to get
him to change his conclusion to an exit instead of an entrance in the
throat.
You are making more stuff up. Bell did not say that Perry told her he
spoke to Humes. He said he was talking to people at Bethesda. Why do you
continually twist the facts when you have been corrected on this point
numerous times?
Who do you think Perry would talk to doing an autopsy on JFK? Don't
give me your dismissive crap.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The evidence says it was an entrance in the throat,
No such evidence exists.
Well now, of course it does! Where do you get these weird ideas? The
wound was described as stellate and punctate, both suggesting an entrance
hole that had been 'punched inward'. Why do you suppose Perry and others
originally thought the wound was an entrance?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and seeing inside
the body with the organs removed told onlookers that the back wound bullet
did NOT traverse the body and come out the throat.
So no you turn to the techies to determine what the autopsy showed. How
silly.
WRONG again! They didn't determine anything. They simply told me
what they saw.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Even the Autopsy
Report (AR) stated that the "pleura was intact". The bullet could NOT go
through without tearing or puncturing tissue.
That's right. It went above the pleura which is why the pleura was
contused and not perforated.
FALSE! More disinformation! The bullet struck an inch into the pleura
and lung, and there was no way a bullet was going to then 'go around' any
organs. Bullets plow through organs, and make tears and punctures, they
don't stand up and hop around obstacles.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The bullet also did NOT 'go around' the pleura.
That's true. It passed just above it.
FALSE! The bullet struck an inch into the pleura and lung at the
least, and Jenkins saw that it struck the middle lobe and not the top
lobe.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Bullets go through things, they don't take a curve
and go around them.
Actually bullets do curve when passing through tissue but that's not why
the bullet did strike the pleura. It passed above it but close enough to
cause the bruise.
FALSE! You won't get away with that false information. See above.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The bullet did NOT come out the throat wound, and the
SBT is dead.
Here is where you insert your opinion in place of all the knowledgeable
people who have said otherwise.
Not one of your knowledgeable people saw anything in the body except
the autopsy team. And some of them were under orders to fake the Autopsy
Report (AR). Every one of the medical panels saw nothing in the body
where the proof was, and it now is looking like they were fed bad info.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
As one of the autopsy team members said, it was a 'short
shot', where something defective in the bullet or the weapon caused the
bullet to strike with much less than normal impact and not penetrate but
an inch or so into JFK's back.
A techie said that and techies are not qualified to make judgements about
the medical evidence.
Stop the bullshit! No Technologist made any determination or
judgment, they merely described what they saw. Which told us everything.
A short shot is a known factor seen now and then. It's like shoe, when
you see one, you may look, a shoe. It's a known factor.
Post by bigdog
Their job is to perform specific tasks to help the
people who are knowledgeable. The knowledgeable people concluded otherwise
but of course you opt for the unqualified opinion. It has been explained
to you that a short shot would not have had the velocity to reach the
target. That's why it's called a short shot. It falls short of the target.
You've never been able to explain your way around that inconvenient fact
so you just ignore it.
KNOCK OFF THE CRAP! No one used the opinions of technologists, only
what they saw, which was enough. You keep trying to say that, probably
because your story is so weak other wise.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-26 13:22:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Humes lied when he said that he learned about the tracheostomy on
Saturday morning. He needed an excuse for why he had burned his notes,
which was not supposed to be done. The notes were to be saved in all
cases. Here's the proof that Humes knew DURING the autopsy or before,
http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
As well, Dr. Ebersole (radiologist) spoke about knowing DURING the
The autopsy team suspected by the time the autopsy was completed that a
tracheostomy had been performed over the exit wound which is why they
originally didn't think there had been one. Humes wanted to verify that
with Dr. Perry directly and that conversation took place the following
morning. There had been conversations between Parkland and Bethesda during
the autopsy but Saturday morning is when Humes spoke directly to Perry.
You can't cite a single witness who said Humes spoke directly to Perry the
previous night.
WRONG as usual! Your lack of knowledge about this case leads you
into trouble often. Here are 3 witnesses proving that Humes knew the day
of the murder that a tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound in the
throat.
1. Dr. Livingston - http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Livingston.txt
Post by mainframetech
2. Dr. Ebersole
"After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole,
MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, ???Ebersole had told me
during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound
from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he
had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy
??? that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that
intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound ???
corresponding to the back entrance wound ??? was
solved.???[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two
hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm
3. Nurse Audrey Bell -
"Given permission, she continues, ???Saturday morning when I got
over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of
course he had been primary until Dr. Clark came ??? He sat down in a
chair. I said, ???You look awful. Did you get any sleep last
night???? And he said, ???Well, not too much between the calls
from Bethesda that came in during the night.??? I said,
???What about???? He said, ???Oh. Whether that was an
entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat.??? He said,
???They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance
wound.?????? [31] Nurse Bell clarifies that her exchange with
Dr. Perry occurred in the morning, before he decamped just after the
Saturday press conference, during which he was silent after telling Dr.
Kemp Clark what Humes had told him, and asking Clark to take over for him
to avoid having to lie at the Saturday afternoon press conference. Chalk
up another perjury for Humes, who testified that he did not discuss the
results of the autopsy with Dr. Perry. [32] The frosting on the cover-up
cake may now be tasted. Perry talked to Humes on Friday and told him that
the throat wound was an entrance wound, as did Dr. Livingston, and almost
certainly others."
From: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html
Humes knew about the tracheostomy during the autopsy. Try and get it
right next time.
If he did, why didn't he just reach the inevitable conclusion: a shot
from behind had exited the throat?
Remember, Humes knew there was an entrance wound in the back (it had
an abrasion collar), and he knew there was no bullet in the body.
So knowing that the tracheotomy covered a throat wound would have
simply allowed him to reach the same conclusion earlier.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
The story including the extra text about the 'neighboring wound' might
just as easily have prompted Humes to think of the tracheotomy going over
the bullet wound, but I produced 3 witnesses, of which Livingston was only
one. Dr. Ebersole was witness to the phone call to Perry at Parkland, and
it actually stopped him from, doing certain things that he was about to
do. As well, Nurse Audrey Bell heard it from Dr. Perry himself that he
had been up all night answering Humes from Bethesda who was trying to get
him to change his conclusion to an exit instead of an entrance in the
throat.
The evidence says it was an entrance in the throat, and seeing inside
the body with the organs removed told onlookers that the back wound bullet
Who? Who told? Did you leave out the name intentionally to mislead
everyone. Who? Do you mean the janitor? You think the janitor is more
qualified than the autopsy doctors?
Post by mainframetech
did NOT traverse the body and come out the throat. Even the Autopsy
Report (AR) stated that the "pleura was intact". The bullet could NOT go
So what? Irrelevant. The bullet went OVER the pleura. It did not go
through the lung. It went close enough to the lung to bruise it.
If you have a bruise on your arm does that prove that a bullet went
THROUGH it? Only a bruise. No hole.
Post by mainframetech
through without tearing or puncturing tissue. The bullet also did NOT 'go
around' the pleura. Bullets go through things, they don't take a curve
No one said AROUND, Mr. Straw Man. OVER. Learn English.
Post by mainframetech
and go around them. The bullet did NOT come out the throat wound, and the
SBT is dead. As one of the autopsy team members said, it was a 'short
FYI, a SBT does not require that the bullet comes out the throat wound,
but it did.
Post by mainframetech
shot', where something defective in the bullet or the weapon caused the
bullet to strike with much less than normal impact and not penetrate but
an inch or so into JFK's back.
Sure, such as? How about defective powder or defective primer? Thousands
of rounds have been fired without any such problem. One guy tried to
duplicate your short shot and underloaded the powder so much that the
bullet couldn't even get out of the barrel and the action exploded in his
hands.

So much for YOUR pet theory. Tested and debunked. If you don't believe
Chapman, why don't you get out your 91/38 and test it for yourself.
Post by mainframetech
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-22 01:41:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 19 Jul 2018 17:35:55 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
But Finck was ordered NOT to examine the wound.
Q: Now, can you give me the name then of the General that was in charge of
the autopsy, as you testified about?
A: Well, there was no General in charge of the autopsy. There were several
people, as I have stated before, I heard Dr. Humes state who was in charge
here, and he stated that the General answered "I am," it may have been
pertaining to operations other than the autopsy, it does not mean the Army
General was in charge of the autopsy, but when Dr. Humes asked who was in
charge here, it may have been who was in charge of the operations, but not
of the autopsy, and by "operations," I mean the over-all supervision.
* * *
He clarified an earlier statement he made about how some General claimed
to "in charge" - the comment that almost all CTs cite but never cite the
above clarification. Finck makes it clear that no General/Admiral was
ordering them HOW to conduct the autopsy.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
I have posted the same thing thousands of times, but consider this
Did Finck understand thew difference between an ARMY General and a Navy
General? So when he said General he means Army General.
Who there was an Army General and had the authority to order him?
He was ordered by The Commander of the base, Stoval to OBEY the orders
from the unnameble Army General as though they had come from Stoval himself.
Interesting that buffs obsess on the New Orleans trial testimony, when
there is copious evidence from both Manchester and the HSCA
interviews.
It was Adm. George Burkley who was (correctly) assumed to represent
"the family" and who was hurrying things up.
Irrelevant. This was about a GENERAL, not an ADMIRAL.

Was Burkely in the autopsy room all the time telling them not to examine
wounds?

Got any testimony to that effect?

Try to stay on topic.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mainframetech
2018-07-15 23:46:46 UTC
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
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
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
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
bigdog
2018-07-18 22:30:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
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!
Of course you believe he least qualified person at Bethesda that night.
Post by mainframetech
While YOU on the other hand are told a ridiculous story
about a 'single bullet' THEORY and believe that!
The single bullet theory has absolutely nothing to do with the findings of
the autopsy team since it wasn't formulated to long after they had issued
their AR.
Post by mainframetech
Against all common sense
and logic, you believe the more ridiculous THEORY!
There is absolutely nothing about the SBT that defies logic or common
sense. A Carcano round is more than capable of passing through the bodies
of two adult males. The bullet which exited JFK's throat would have been
heading right for JBC's back. It would have been almost impossible for it
to miss him.
Post by mainframetech
While I've shown not a
THEORY, but a flat statement of an eyewitness!
You've shown a flat statement of a cherry picked witness who wasn't
competent to determine the nature of JFK's wounds. He had been trained to
perform a few simple tasks to assist the pathologists and for some
unfathomable reason you think his opinion should carry more weight than
the three pathologists who performed the autopsy and teams of review
panels who looked at the medical evidence and concurred with the finding
that JFK was struck twice from behind.
Post by mainframetech
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.
So you start with the assumption that there had been a conspiracy and then
weigh the evidence against that. No wonder your ideas are so screwy.
Post by mainframetech
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.
I did. It made no sense.
Post by mainframetech
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!
So you think the HSCA both covered up a conspiracy and concluded there was
a conspiracy. You never cease to amaze.
Post by mainframetech
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.
Why would that be?
Post by mainframetech
Humes was also shown to have lied on more than one occasion.
You have claimed he lied on more than one occasion. You've never been able
to show it.
Post by mainframetech
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.
Just because the AR doesn't fit with your presumption that there was
conspiracy isn't an indictment of the AR. It is an indictment of your
screwy ideas.
Post by mainframetech
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.
Only to gullible conspiracy hobbyists.
Post by mainframetech
The SBT was NOT sensible, the simple
knowledge of the public knew that was crap and said so, causing yet
another investigation.
The SBT remains the only plausible explanation for the non-fatal wounds to
JFK and JBC that fits the evidence.
Post by mainframetech
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.
The WCR is the truth of the JFK assassination. You wouldn't know that
since you refuse to read it.
Post by mainframetech
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?
Repeating silly claims hundreds of times does nothing to improve their
credibility.
Post by mainframetech
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,
Not to you since you don't care if a person is competent to render
technical judgements or not. All you car is if they tell a story that you
want to believe. That is your sole criteria from judging someone's
credibility.
Post by mainframetech
since I'm taking what the
Technologists SAW and not what their knowledge said was there.
I'm talking about what the pathologists saw. You want to dismiss what they
said because you like the techies story better.
Post by mainframetech
And try to
remember that NONE of the medical examiners ever had a look inside the
body as it lay on the table.
The three pathologists who performed the autopsy most certainly did.
Post by mainframetech
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.
You define "decent finding" as one that fits you preconceived screwy ideas.
Post by mainframetech
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.
That means you are psycho-analyzing Humes.
Post by mainframetech
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,
Only in a living body, not a dead one. Dead people's wounds don't heal.
Post by mainframetech
and even heal!
Good luck finding a medical professional who shares that opinion.
Post by mainframetech
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.
Putting you medical ignorance on full display again.
Post by mainframetech
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!
That is what happens when bullets hit the spinal column. Not just rifle
bullets but handgun bullets as well.
Post by mainframetech
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.
Nonsense. You are just making things up, aka fabricating.
Post by mainframetech
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.
You could easily prove me wrong by diagramming this alleged bullet path
but you won't even try because you know I am not wrong.
Post by mainframetech
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.
Amazing that you think I am suppose to accept the nonsense you dream up as
if it were factual.
Post by mainframetech
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!
So the short answer is you can't cite a competent medical examiner who
thinks sonometer means centimeter.
Post by mainframetech
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.
No, they also had the choice of disagreeing with that basic finding by the
original pathologists but that would have been really, really stupid of
them.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-19 21:43:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
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!
Of course you believe he least qualified person at Bethesda that night.
Post by mainframetech
While YOU on the other hand are told a ridiculous story
about a 'single bullet' THEORY and believe that!
The single bullet theory has absolutely nothing to do with the findings of
the autopsy team since it wasn't formulated to long after they had issued
their AR.
Post by mainframetech
Against all common sense
and logic, you believe the more ridiculous THEORY!
There is absolutely nothing about the SBT that defies logic or common
Yes, there is. The angles and the location of the wounds do not line up
for a Single bullet. That's why the WC and its defenders always have to
lie about them.
Post by bigdog
sense. A Carcano round is more than capable of passing through the bodies
of two adult males. The bullet which exited JFK's throat would have been
Irrelevant. We've known and discussed that all the time.
No one ever proposed anything different except one certain kook and you
should learn to ignore him.
Post by bigdog
heading right for JBC's back. It would have been almost impossible for it
to miss him.
Well, if it was headed for his back, which you have not proven then you
disprove the SBT all by yourself because he was hit in the right armpit,
not the back. FRONT SIDE BACK. They are all different. Unless you don't
know the difference.


Dale Myers showed that there was room for a shot to go OVER JFK, missing
him and hit Connally in the right armpit.

Loading Image...
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
While I've shown not a
THEORY, but a flat statement of an eyewitness!
You've shown a flat statement of a cherry picked witness who wasn't
competent to determine the nature of JFK's wounds. He had been trained to
perform a few simple tasks to assist the pathologists and for some
unfathomable reason you think his opinion should carry more weight than
the three pathologists who performed the autopsy and teams of review
panels who looked at the medical evidence and concurred with the finding
that JFK was struck twice from behind.
Boring lecturing of kindergarteners.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
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.
So you start with the assumption that there had been a conspiracy and then
weigh the evidence against that. No wonder your ideas are so screwy.
Some of us do because we KNOW there were shots from two different
directions and that means conspiracy. How can Oswald shoot JFK in the
forehead from the sniper's nest in the TSBD.
Was that one of them thar U-turn bullets?
Or do you believe in the Ricochet theory?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
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.
I did. It made no sense.
He doesn't have to make sense. All he has to do is ask tough questions
and see you floundering around and not answer them, like Trump.
Maybe when you said WOULD you actually meant to say WOULD NOT.
Maybe when you said NO, you meant GOODBYE.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
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!
So you think the HSCA both covered up a conspiracy and concluded there was
a conspiracy. You never cease to amaze.
Silly. I've explained this thousands of times and you never listen.
The first HSCA as intent on finding a conspiracy.
The second HSCA was intent on covering up the conspiracy.
But it accidentally proved the conspiracy (barely - 7 to 5).
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
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.
Why would that be?
Post by mainframetech
Humes was also shown to have lied on more than one occasion.
You have claimed he lied on more than one occasion. You've never been able
to show it.
Post by mainframetech
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.
Just because the AR doesn't fit with your presumption that there was
conspiracy isn't an indictment of the AR. It is an indictment of your
screwy ideas.
ICE BULLET?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
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.
Only to gullible conspiracy hobbyists.
They are called Alterationists.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The SBT was NOT sensible, the simple
knowledge of the public knew that was crap and said so, causing yet
another investigation.
The SBT remains the only plausible explanation for the non-fatal wounds to
JFK and JBC that fits the evidence.
No. There is time enough and room enough for two separate shots. The only
way to make it fit the evidence is to LIE about some part of it. would YOU
LIE about the evidence in ANY case just to convict someone you didn't
like? Is that what the US Constitution tells you to do? The ONLY way that
you can convict Dreyfus is to LIE about the evidence. It also helps if you
were the one to PLANT the evidence.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
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 embarrassment.
The WCR is the truth of the JFK assassination. You wouldn't know that
since you refuse to read it.
It's your Bible, but you are selective about what parts to believe.
It doesn't say that the first shot missed, but you believe it missed.
It says the limo always had that dent in the chrome topping, but even
YOU are smart enough to know that was a lie.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
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?
Repeating silly claims hundreds of times does nothing to improve their
credibility.
But that is exactly what you cover-up does about the SBT.
YOU are always Hypocrites.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
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,
Not to you since you don't care if a person is competent to render
technical judgements or not. All you car is if they tell a story that you
want to believe. That is your sole criteria from judging someone's
credibility.
YOU don't care about some moron guessing it was an ICE BULLET as long as
it came from behind.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
since I'm taking what the
Technologists SAW and not what their knowledge said was there.
I'm talking about what the pathologists saw. You want to dismiss what they
said because you like the techies story better.
You mean The Three Stooges? "Hey Moe, did you find that Ice Bullet yet?"
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And try to
remember that NONE of the medical examiners ever had a look inside the
body as it lay on the table.
The three pathologists who performed the autopsy most certainly did.
Not pathologists. Stooges.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
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.
You define "decent finding" as one that fits you preconceived screwy ideas.
Medically sound, verifiable by qualied FORENSIC PATHOLOGISTS.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
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.
That means you are psycho-analyzing Humes.
No, it's also what Fink said.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
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,
Only in a living body, not a dead one. Dead people's wounds don't heal.
You've been watching too much of The Walking Dead.
Fingernails do not really keep growing when you die.
That's just an optical illusion.
But cadavers do move. That's a medical fact.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and even heal!
Good luck finding a medical professional who shares that opinion.
AMC 9:00 SUnday nights.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
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.
Putting you medical ignorance on full display again.
Post by mainframetech
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!
That is what happens when bullets hit the spinal column. Not just rifle
bullets but handgun bullets as well.
Not true in all cases and where the person is paralyzed depends on where
he was hit.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
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.
Nonsense. You are just making things up, aka fabricating.
Post by mainframetech
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.
You could easily prove me wrong by diagramming this alleged bullet path
but you won't even try because you know I am not wrong.
Naughty, naughty. You demand of others that which you never produce
yours Show us YOUR diagrams for comparison purposes.
I already uploaded mine years ago.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
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.
Amazing that you think I am suppose to accept the nonsense you dream up as
if it were factual.
Post by mainframetech
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!
So the short answer is you can't cite a competent medical examiner who
thinks sonometer means centimeter.
Doesn't need a forensic pathologist. He cited his source.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
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.
No, they also had the choice of disagreeing with that basic finding by the
original pathologists but that would have been really, really stupid of
them.
So you are admitting that they were STUPID? Not notice.
I thought we weren't allowed to use that word here.
Ace Kefford
2018-07-10 22:47:41 UTC
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-18 22:21:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
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?
It's called an affectation. Trying to seem more educated.
Post by claviger
Especially in the medical field where precision is so important?
Precision? You mean like using Metric measurements instead of English
measurements? Don't be a prissy poofer!
Post by claviger
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
2018-07-21 00:09:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
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?
Ask a nurse.
Post by claviger
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.
So when you screwed up on the sonometer word, you immediately skipped
over to peanuts?

Chris
Jason Burke
2018-07-22 01:49:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
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?
Ask a nurse.
Post by claviger
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.
So when you screwed up on the sonometer word, you immediately skipped
over to peanuts?
Chris
Still gots nuffin, eh, Chris?
mainframetech
2018-07-17 00:48:48 UTC
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
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.
mainframetech
2018-07-21 00:08:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
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.
Lordee! We're so lucky to have a guru of everything right here with
us! Well guru, did it occur to you that folks make up words or use them
as they wish, and that groups of people sometimes do the same? Did you
think that we were talking about ONLY perfect dictionary English words?
The term Sonometer is used in various medical fields, as per the 3 links I
posted. No one said anything about the word being good English or
anything at all except a word used often by medical people. As I've
sometimes had to tell you, WE'RE NOT IN COURT!

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-22 01:45:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
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.
Lordee! We're so lucky to have a guru of everything right here with
us! Well guru, did it occur to you that folks make up words or use them
as they wish, and that groups of people sometimes do the same?
There is an adjective to describe such people. Malapropistic.
Post by mainframetech
Did you
think that we were talking about ONLY perfect dictionary English words?
The term Sonometer is used in various medical fields, as per the 3 links I
posted.
It is misused.
Post by mainframetech
No one said anything about the word being good English or
anything at all except a word used often by medical people. As I've
sometimes had to tell you, WE'RE NOT IN COURT!
People who don't know the difference between a sonometer and a centimeter
are not people I would put much faith in when it comes to the medical
evidence.
mainframetech
2018-07-23 01:32:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
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.
Lordee! We're so lucky to have a guru of everything right here with
us! Well guru, did it occur to you that folks make up words or use them
as they wish, and that groups of people sometimes do the same?
There is an adjective to describe such people. Malapropistic.
Post by mainframetech
Did you
think that we were talking about ONLY perfect dictionary English words?
The term Sonometer is used in various medical fields, as per the 3 links I
posted.
It is misused.
So is your opinion.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
No one said anything about the word being good English or
anything at all except a word used often by medical people. As I've
sometimes had to tell you, WE'RE NOT IN COURT!
People who don't know the difference between a sonometer and a centimeter
are not people I would put much faith in when it comes to the medical
evidence.
I understand. I can't put much faith in what you say either.

Chris
claviger
2018-07-18 00:14:47 UTC
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
Jason Burke
2018-07-19 01:59:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
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
Alls I know is they're the same thing. As I learned when Mrs. B was in
the process of shooting out yet another one.

Oh. None of them are named Paul.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-13 14:46:09 UTC
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
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
d***@gmail.com
2018-07-19 18:00:26 UTC
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
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.
You have evidence that Dr. Humes was made aware that there was a
conspiracy and felt it was his duty (or maybe he was given an
illegal/criminal order) to change his conclusion? And, of course, Drs.
Boswell and Finck would be all onboard with that - right? What could
possibly go wrong with changing the conclusion (criminally!) of an autopsy
when there was a standing-room-only audience, many of whom were close
aides to Kennedy, watching what was going on in the Bethesda morgue? Pfft!
Post by Anthony Marsh
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.
No, it was PUZZLING to him for the precise reason that it doesn't make a
lot of sense. Bullets do not typically lodge only a small distance in soft
tissue. But, like I said, based on what he was working with, he had no
other explanation. Being told that a whole bullet was recovered at
Parkland, while still engaged with the autopsy, gave a degree of
plausibility to this conclusion ... but it STILL didn't seem to be quite
right.
Post by Anthony Marsh
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.
Well, actually, you WOULD expect to see a bullet lodged if you only have
an entry wound and no exit wound - at least, from Dr. Humes'
perspective.
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
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.
Their (Sibert & O'Neill's) PRIMARY job was *not* to evaluate the protocols
of the autopsy. Their PRIMARY job was to collect any relevant evidence -
particularly, a bullet. They left with three of the larger flecks of metal
in the skull although x-rays indicated that there were about 40. They also
left with assurances that the autopsy photos & x-rays would be forwarded
to the FBI.
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
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.
There are coroners, who are usually elected or appointed, usually in small
communities (some of whom are doctors but not necessarily) ... and their
are medical examiners, who are usually doctors but not always schooled in
forensics ... and there are pathologists, not all of whom are FORENSIC
pathologists. That's why Dr. Pierre Finck was asked to assist. He was not
only a forensic pathologist, he was particularly familiar with gunshot
wounds.

Having said that, determining which way a bullet was traveling as is
crashes through a human skull is a very elementary medical determination
to make. It's Pathology 101 stuff. A medical school student would get it
right 99 out of 100 times. Hell - YOU'D get it right 99 out of 100 times -
if you were there.

Sure, there were shortcomings in this autopsy. It was not a great autopsy.
But those shortcomings are only relevant in the face of outlandish
conspiratorial fantasies.

I refuse to accept that Humes, Boswell and Finck were criminals who were
acting in the furtherance of a criminal cover-up regarding the brutal
death of a sitting president.
Post by Anthony Marsh
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.
I don't blame the Secret Service because I wouldn't expect them to know
that this would be relevant when conducting an autopsy. I don't know if
Humes even inquired about the availability of the clothing. He should
have.
Post by Anthony Marsh
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?
So you DO know whether Humes inquired about the availability of Kennedy's
clothing? Great! I would like to see that document - or maybe you can
provide a link where that information can be known. After all, you're a
great researcher. Don't you want to show us how great you are?

You always seem to combine arrogance with anger in your posts. Why is
that? That's not very researcher-like of you. Most researchers I know are
calm, intelligent and contemplative individuals.

I am not a researcher. I don't flatter myself in that way. I have READ
much of the information of researchers and professionals, however ... at
least, those who have had access to the best evidence and have drawn
conclusions that seem consistent and logical with that evidence ... with
no apparent agenda.

For a guy who likes to remind people that he's a "researcher" as much as
you do, I'd think you would draw more logical conclusions from the
evidence. Instead, you are just a tangent to typical conspiratorial
fantasies that a based mostly on speculation and wishful thinking.

Would you have considered Vincent Bugliosi a researcher? Just curious.
Post by Anthony Marsh
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.
Sibert & O'Neill made a list of EVERYBODY who was in the morgue. Which
General is on that list that you think may have been directing the
autopsy. Were Sibert & O'Neill told to leave this mysterious General off
the list? [Its seems you think Oliver Stone's movie was a documentary.]

There is no doubt that Humes felt pressure to hurry. Mrs. Kennedy is
waiting! She's tired. She needs her sleep. She's been through a lot and
needs to see her children. How much longer is this going to take? "We just
got another call from the 17th floor. They want to know how much longer
this is going to take." Is that really necessary?

It may not be right - but it's certainly understandable considering the
circumstances. One does not necessarily have to ascribe some kind of
nefarious, conspiratorial explanation to this.

Hell, Humes didn't even want to do the autopsy! He informed them that the
procedure could best be done at Walter Reed. In fact, that had to ship
some equipment from Walter Reed to Bethesda. Does that sound like somebody
who was prepared to play a sinister role in a medical cover-up?

Tony, surely, you're not a Lifton/Horne devotee ... because you kind of
sound like one.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-20 17:31:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
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
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.
You have evidence that Dr. Humes was made aware that there was a
Made aware? That is the wrong way to phrase your straw man argument.
If was obvious just looking at the wounds.
You still have not told me how Oswald could shoot JFK in the throat as
Dr. Perry though it came from the front is Oswald was always shooting
from behind. You still can not explain how the bullet hole in the
forehead was caused by Oswald shooting from behind.
If YOU can't figure it out then we know Humes couldn't figure it out,
Post by d***@gmail.com
conspiracy and felt it was his duty (or maybe he was given an
illegal/criminal order) to change his conclusion? And, of course, Drs.
Boswell and Finck would be all onboard with that - right? What could
They did not write the autospy report. Only Humes did. Don't try to
place any balame on them. Humes was in charge. He was Moe, the smart
one. The other two we Larry and Curly Joe.
Post by d***@gmail.com
possibly go wrong with changing the conclusion (criminally!) of an autopsy
when there was a standing-room-only audience, many of whom were close
aides to Kennedy, watching what was going on in the Bethesda morgue? Pfft!
Nothing can go wrong when it's a government cover-up and they hide and
destroy the evidence. Can you tell me what hit the chrome topping? Can
you go down to the National Archives and examnine it?
You can't even look at the autopsy photos.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
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.
No, it was PUZZLING to him for the precise reason that it doesn't make a
lot of sense. Bullets do not typically lodge only a small distance in soft
tissue. But, like I said, based on what he was working with, he had no
That's, but maybe Ice Bullets do!
Post by d***@gmail.com
other explanation. Being told that a whole bullet was recovered at
Parkland, while still engaged with the autopsy, gave a degree of
plausibility to this conclusion ... but it STILL didn't seem to be quite
right.
So would YOU fall for that lame story about the bullet falling out
during heart massage? Would that qualify YOU as a Forensic Pathologist?
HOw about your missing bullet melting into thin air? Why didn't your
buddy Humes think of that!
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
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.
Well, actually, you WOULD expect to see a bullet lodged if you only have
an entry wound and no exit wound - at least, from Dr. Humes'
perspective.
Sure, for a moron.
THAT's why we need LEGAL autopsies. What about the guy who was shot 20
times and he bled so much that he drowned in his own blood? So the
corrupt coroner listed the cause of deat as drowning?
Post by d***@gmail.com
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
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.
Their (Sibert & O'Neill's) PRIMARY job was *not* to evaluate the protocols
of the autopsy. Their PRIMARY job was to collect any relevant evidence -
particularly, a bullet. They left with three of the larger flecks of metal
in the skull although x-rays indicated that there were about 40. They also
left with assurances that the autopsy photos & x-rays would be forwarded
to the FBI.
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
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.
There are coroners, who are usually elected or appointed, usually in small
communities (some of whom are doctors but not necessarily) ... and their
are medical examiners, who are usually doctors but not always schooled in
forensics ... and there are pathologists, not all of whom are FORENSIC
pathologists. That's why Dr. Pierre Finck was asked to assist. He was not
only a forensic pathologist, he was particularly familiar with gunshot
wounds.
Sure, but Finck was not allowed to do his job and examine the back wound.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Having said that, determining which way a bullet was traveling as is
crashes through a human skull is a very elementary medical determination
to make. It's Pathology 101 stuff. A medical school student would get it
right 99 out of 100 times. Hell - YOU'D get it right 99 out of 100 times -
if you were there.
What do you mean? Many WC defenders get it wrong.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Sure, there were shortcomings in this autopsy. It was not a great autopsy.
But those shortcomings are only relevant in the face of outlandish
conspiratorial fantasies.
So you don't mind that they screwed it up. If they added 2 and 2 and got
5, that's OK with you because you wanted the answer to be 5.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I refuse to accept that Humes, Boswell and Finck were criminals who were
acting in the furtherance of a criminal cover-up regarding the brutal
death of a sitting president.
Well, it is kinda early for a cover-up when they don't know that needs
to be covered up. They didn't know that the Carcano only shot 3 bullets
and they only had to account for 2.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
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.
I don't blame the Secret Service because I wouldn't expect them to know
that this would be relevant when conducting an autopsy. I don't know if
Humes even inquired about the availability of the clothing. He should
have.
That's the point exactly. They were too stupid to know.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
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?
So you DO know whether Humes inquired about the availability of Kennedy's
clothing? Great! I would like to see that document - or maybe you can
provide a link where that information can be known. After all, you're a
great researcher. Don't you want to show us how great you are?
ARRB.
Post by d***@gmail.com
You always seem to combine arrogance with anger in your posts. Why is
I try to make it a good mix of each.
Post by d***@gmail.com
that? That's not very researcher-like of you. Most researchers I know are
Because I am sick and tired of the WC defenders lying.
Almost every WC defender lied and said that there was NO bullet hole on
JFK's forehead. McAdams was the only one brave enough to admit it. So
Kudos to him.
Post by d***@gmail.com
calm, intelligent and contemplative individuals.
I am not a researcher. I don't flatter myself in that way. I have READ
much of the information of researchers and professionals, however ... at
least, those who have had access to the best evidence and have drawn
conclusions that seem consistent and logical with that evidence ... with
no apparent agenda.
You CAN'T read all the ARRB volumes that the kook cites.
Just read a few excerpts.
Post by d***@gmail.com
For a guy who likes to remind people that he's a "researcher" as much as
you do, I'd think you would draw more logical conclusions from the
evidence. Instead, you are just a tangent to typical conspiratorial
My conclusions are very logical, but I also have things that others
don't. Documents.
Post by d***@gmail.com
fantasies that a based mostly on speculation and wishful thinking.
Would you have considered Vincent Bugliosi a researcher? Just curious.
No. Bugliosi was a professional liar and I told him to his face.
He did not seek the truth. He only wanted to find things to ridicule
conspiracy believers.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
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.
Sibert & O'Neill made a list of EVERYBODY who was in the morgue. Which
It was not accurate and not compete.
Post by d***@gmail.com
General is on that list that you think may have been directing the
autopsy. Were Sibert & O'Neill told to leave this mysterious General off
the list? [Its seems you think Oliver Stone's movie was a documentary.]
I am not talking about the list. I think it was either Wehle or a
General who came in late. Remember that they did not find the back wound
until late in the autopsy.
Post by d***@gmail.com
There is no doubt that Humes felt pressure to hurry. Mrs. Kennedy is
Hurry is not the point. They allowed them to take their time doing all
the normal things, but the unnamble General interferes only bout the
diddection of the back wound. Not the head wound or the Y-incision.
Post by d***@gmail.com
waiting! She's tired. She needs her sleep. She's been through a lot and
Flimsy excuse. Shame on you for trying to shift the blame from the
villain to the victim.
Post by d***@gmail.com
needs to see her children. How much longer is this going to take? "We just
got another call from the 17th floor. They want to know how much longer
this is going to take." Is that really necessary?
It may not be right - but it's certainly understandable considering the
circumstances. One does not necessarily have to ascribe some kind of
nefarious, conspiratorial explanation to this.
Yeah, nbt somewhere along the line somebody has to take responsibility
for the cover-up.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Hell, Humes didn't even want to do the autopsy! He informed them that the
procedure could best be done at Walter Reed. In fact, that had to ship
some equipment from Walter Reed to Bethesda. Does that sound like somebody
who was prepared to play a sinister role in a medical cover-up?
And maybe he was right, but it was not his decision to make.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Tony, surely, you're not a Lifton/Horne devotee ... because you kind of
sound like one.
Wrong. I am the guy who debates Lifton and points out his errors.
I don't read Horne. I detest Liftonites.
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
d***@gmail.com
2018-07-19 18:12:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
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.
You think that THIS is what was on the minds of the pathologists at the
time of the autopsy? Is there anything you can cite that this type of
information (impending nuclear attack) was being relayed to the doctors
and that, somehow, skipping certain autopsy procedures would save the
world from a nuclear holocaust?

Of course, as usual, you're just being sarcastically hyperbolic. Or, at
least I HOPE so.

Sometimes you remind me of Donald Trump. You say absolutely ridiculous
things and his supporters dismiss it as, "That's just his brash style" ...
"He doesn't mean half the stuff he says" ... "Ignore what he says and
focus on what he DOES" ... "That's just Trump being Trump" chuckle,
chuckle, chuckle.
Post by Anthony Marsh
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?
During the autopsy, they DID receive information from Dallas that a whole
bullet was recovered. I don't know if they were specifically told that it
was a RIFLE bullet, but I think it was safe to assume that the president
wasn't shot with a pistol.
Post by Anthony Marsh
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!
Dr. Pierre Finck WAS an expert on gunshot wounds. That's why he was there
because, to his credit, Dr. Humes knew his limitations. As I said before,
Humes suggested the autopsy be done at Walter Reed.
Post by Anthony Marsh
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.
There is enough information in the autopsy report to piece together that
the bullet that entered high on Kennedy's back continued on and exited his
throat.

Tony, surely you're not claiming that the back wound and the neck wound
were BOTH wounds of entrance. If so, you don't simply have a Magic Bullet
but you have a Magic Bullet shooting scenario ... that's 100% speculation
it is, by far, the most bizarre conclusion when confronted with a far
simpler and more logical conclusion. [No need to chastise me for not being
well-versed on all your previous opinions on this matter. You'll have to
excuse me for not taking notes on your previous positions.]
Post by Anthony Marsh
Patient says, "Doctor, my arm hurts when I raise my hand over my head."
Henny Youngman.
"If we made a mistake, it was in not calling Dallas before we started the
autopsy. Our information from Parkland Hospital in Dallas before we
started the autopsy was zero. If only we had seen the president's clothes,
tracking the second bullet would have been a piece of cake, but we didn't
have the clothes. In hindsight, we could have saved ourselves a lot of
trouble if we had known that the doctors at Parkland performed a
tracheostomy in an attempt to save the President's life and that this
procedure obliterated the exit wound of the bullet that entered at the
base of the neck." - Dr. James Humes (JAMA report)

That's a pretty honest admission and does not sound like a guy trying to
cover things up.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-20 22:34:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
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.
You think that THIS is what was on the minds of the pathologists at the
time of the autopsy? Is there anything you can cite that this type of
information (impending nuclear attack) was being relayed to the doctors
and that, somehow, skipping certain autopsy procedures would save the
world from a nuclear holocaust?
Of course, as usual, you're just being sarcastically hyperbolic. Or, at
least I HOPE so.
Sometimes you remind me of Donald Trump. You say absolutely ridiculous
things and his supporters dismiss it as, "That's just his brash style" ...
"He doesn't mean half the stuff he says" ... "Ignore what he says and
focus on what he DOES" ... "That's just Trump being Trump" chuckle,
chuckle, chuckle.
Post by Anthony Marsh
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?
During the autopsy, they DID receive information from Dallas that a whole
bullet was recovered. I don't know if they were specifically told that it
was a RIFLE bullet, but I think it was safe to assume that the president
wasn't shot with a pistol.
Post by Anthony Marsh
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!
Dr. Pierre Finck WAS an expert on gunshot wounds. That's why he was there
because, to his credit, Dr. Humes knew his limitations. As I said before,
Humes suggested the autopsy be done at Walter Reed.
Post by Anthony Marsh
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.
There is enough information in the autopsy report to piece together that
the bullet that entered high on Kennedy's back continued on and exited his
throat.
Tony, surely you're not claiming that the back wound and the neck wound
were BOTH wounds of entrance. If so, you don't simply have a Magic Bullet
but you have a Magic Bullet shooting scenario ... that's 100% speculation
it is, by far, the most bizarre conclusion when confronted with a far
simpler and more logical conclusion. [No need to chastise me for not being
well-versed on all your previous opinions on this matter. You'll have to
excuse me for not taking notes on your previous positions.]
Post by Anthony Marsh
Patient says, "Doctor, my arm hurts when I raise my hand over my head."
Henny Youngman.
"If we made a mistake, it was in not calling Dallas before we started the
autopsy. Our information from Parkland Hospital in Dallas before we
started the autopsy was zero. If only we had seen the president's clothes,
tracking the second bullet would have been a piece of cake, but we didn't
have the clothes. In hindsight, we could have saved ourselves a lot of
trouble if we had known that the doctors at Parkland performed a
tracheostomy in an attempt to save the President's life and that this
procedure obliterated the exit wound of the bullet that entered at the
base of the neck." - Dr. James Humes (JAMA report)
That's a pretty honest admission and does not sound like a guy trying to
cover things up.
So, you can see from this example that you can't just go by WC testimony
and/or HSCA testimony. There are other important sources out there. But
remember that interviews like that are NOT under oath and you might see
someone lying to protect his reputation.

Obviously the JAMA information is important but you have to remember that
he had a bias to defend the WC lone nut theory at all costs and would lie
about it easily.


On the other hand the interviewer may have more recent information or
files and be able and willing to talk about things that the WC and HSCA
avoided.
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
d***@gmail.com
2018-07-19 21:40:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
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.
(JAMA 267-20-034 report)

By 7:30 PM, Humes was in his scrubs in the hospital's new morgue, built
only four months earlier. He had selected Dr Boswell as his assistant. The
morgue was at the back of the hospital, and, as Dr Humes stepped outside
the morgue onto the loading dock, he noticed a crowd milling about and an
unknown man carrying a large, old-fashioned "Speed Graphic" camera. Still
outside the morgue, the pathologist told the unknown cameraman, "Get out!"
Then, Humes asked, "Who's in charge here?" The answer was only 2 feet
away, as a man in full military dress answered, "I am. Who wants to know?"
Humes explains, "The man who said he was in charge outside the morgue was
some general representing the military section of the District of
Columbia. I told him what my assignment was and asked him about the chap
with the camera. Well, seconds later, this chap with the camera was sent
away."

(end of citation)

This gives the whole "Who's in charge?" question and the "mysterious
general" a whole new context - doesn't it?

The mystery general was General Wehle, Commanding General of the Military
District of Washington.

As Dr. Finck testified in New Orleans: "Well, there was no general in
charge of the autopsy. There were several people, as I have stated before,
I heard Dr. Humes state who was in charge here, and he stated that the
general answered 'I am'. It may have been pertaining to operations other
than the autopsy, it does not mean the Army General was in charge of the
autopsy, but when Dr. Humes asked who was in charge here, it may have been
who was in charge of the operations, but not of the autopsy, and by
'operations,' I mean the over-all supervision."

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-20 22:35:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
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.
(JAMA 267-20-034 report)
By 7:30 PM, Humes was in his scrubs in the hospital's new morgue, built
only four months earlier. He had selected Dr Boswell as his assistant. The
morgue was at the back of the hospital, and, as Dr Humes stepped outside
the morgue onto the loading dock, he noticed a crowd milling about and an
unknown man carrying a large, old-fashioned "Speed Graphic" camera. Still
outside the morgue, the pathologist told the unknown cameraman, "Get out!"
Who said that? Prove it was him and not some unnamed General.
Did he ASSuME that the unknown cameraman was a rporter?
For all he knew it could have been Stoughton, except Stoughton got there
too late.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Then, Humes asked, "Who's in charge here?" The answer was only 2 feet
away, as a man in full military dress answered, "I am. Who wants to know?"
Humes explains, "The man who said he was in charge outside the morgue was
some general representing the military section of the District of
Columbia. I told him what my assignment was and asked him about the chap
with the camera. Well, seconds later, this chap with the camera was sent
away."
Shouldn't that General (always capitalized) be Wehle? He WAS in charge.
Have you read his oral history at the JFK Library? If you come to Boston
I'll buy you dinner. As I did for Duke Lane. Unfortunately Pier 4 is gone.
Post by d***@gmail.com
(end of citation)
This gives the whole "Who's in charge?" question and the "mysterious
general" a whole new context - doesn't it?
I kinda think so, but a lot of people want it to be Curtis LeMay, as the
representative of the conspiracy coalition.
Post by d***@gmail.com
The mystery general was General Wehle, Commanding General of the Military
District of Washington.
I like your bold statement, but then you have to prove it.
Are you up for the challenge when you haven't even read all the millions
of documents? I just say that I THINK it was Wehle, but I can't prove it.
Post by d***@gmail.com
As Dr. Finck testified in New Orleans: "Well, there was no general in
charge of the autopsy. There were several people, as I have stated before,
I heard Dr. Humes state who was in charge here, and he stated that the
general answered 'I am'. It may have been pertaining to operations other
than the autopsy, it does not mean the Army General was in charge of the
autopsy, but when Dr. Humes asked who was in charge here, it may have been
who was in charge of the operations, but not of the autopsy, and by
'operations,' I mean the over-all supervision."
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Maybe he was afraid to or ordered NOT to name the General.
d***@gmail.com
2018-07-22 01:48:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
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.
(JAMA 267-20-034 report)
By 7:30 PM, Humes was in his scrubs in the hospital's new morgue, built
only four months earlier. He had selected Dr Boswell as his assistant. The
morgue was at the back of the hospital, and, as Dr Humes stepped outside
the morgue onto the loading dock, he noticed a crowd milling about and an
unknown man carrying a large, old-fashioned "Speed Graphic" camera. Still
outside the morgue, the patho