Neuropathologist: JFK's Head Wound Explained

[claviger]

50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

[mainframetech]

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.

Chris

[s***@yahoo.com]

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He went to the archives and was given permission by the Kennedy family to
see the original photos and x-rays. And examine JFK's clothes.

He based his conclusions on that evidence.

How was he misinformed when he - not you - saw the original evidence?

[Spence]

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He went to the archives and was given permission by the Kennedy family to
see the original photos and x-rays. And examine JFK's clothes.
He based his conclusions on that evidence.
How was he misinformed when he - not you - saw the original evidence?

"It was a single gunshot wound to the back of his head," Cummings said
without hesitation. "It was right where the autopsy doctors said it had
happened."

"The quality is fantastic. Once I saw those photographs, it became very
clear what had happened to President Kennedy . . . It was a single gunshot
wound to the back of the head. Based on the fracture pattern, we can say
there was no shot from the side or the front."

Yea, that pretty much sums it up.

[mainframetech]

Post by Spence

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He went to the archives and was given permission by the Kennedy family to
see the original photos and x-rays. And examine JFK's clothes.
He based his conclusions on that evidence.
How was he misinformed when he - not you - saw the original evidence?

"It was a single gunshot wound to the back of his head," Cummings said
without hesitation. "It was right where the autopsy doctors said it had
happened."
"The quality is fantastic. Once I saw those photographs, it became very
clear what had happened to President Kennedy . . . It was a single gunshot
wound to the back of the head. Based on the fracture pattern, we can say
there was no shot from the side or the front."
Yea, that pretty much sums it up.

It's amazing how some folks can be so sure of completely faulty data!

Chris

[claviger]

Post by mainframetech

Post by Spence

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He went to the archives and was given permission by the Kennedy family to
see the original photos and x-rays. And examine JFK's clothes.
He based his conclusions on that evidence.
How was he misinformed when he - not you - saw the original evidence?

"It was a single gunshot wound to the back of his head," Cummings said
without hesitation. "It was right where the autopsy doctors said it had
happened."
"The quality is fantastic. Once I saw those photographs, it became very
clear what had happened to President Kennedy . . . It was a single gunshot
wound to the back of the head. Based on the fracture pattern, we can say
there was no shot from the side or the front."
Yea, that pretty much sums it up.

It's amazing how some folks can be so sure of completely faulty data!
Chris

It's amazing how often you prove it by example, time after time!

[t***@gmail.com]

Post by mainframetech

Post by Spence

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He went to the archives and was given permission by the Kennedy family to
see the original photos and x-rays. And examine JFK's clothes.
He based his conclusions on that evidence.
How was he misinformed when he - not you - saw the original evidence?

"It was a single gunshot wound to the back of his head," Cummings said
without hesitation. "It was right where the autopsy doctors said it had
happened."
"The quality is fantastic. Once I saw those photographs, it became very
clear what had happened to President Kennedy . . . It was a single gunshot
wound to the back of the head. Based on the fracture pattern, we can say
there was no shot from the side or the front."
Yea, that pretty much sums it up.

It's amazing how some folks can be so sure of completely faulty data!
Chris

It's amazing how some folks dig themselves a bigger and bigger hole with
each infantile post they make.

Astounded Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[mainframetech]

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by Spence

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He went to the archives and was given permission by the Kennedy family to
see the original photos and x-rays. And examine JFK's clothes.
He based his conclusions on that evidence.
How was he misinformed when he - not you - saw the original evidence?

"It was a single gunshot wound to the back of his head," Cummings said
without hesitation. "It was right where the autopsy doctors said it had
happened."
"The quality is fantastic. Once I saw those photographs, it became very
clear what had happened to President Kennedy . . . It was a single gunshot
wound to the back of the head. Based on the fracture pattern, we can say
there was no shot from the side or the front."
Yea, that pretty much sums it up.

It's amazing how some folks can be so sure of completely faulty data!
Chris

It's amazing how some folks dig themselves a bigger and bigger hole with
each infantile post they make.
Astounded Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

Ain't it the truth!!!

Chris

[bigdog]

Post by mainframetech

Post by Spence

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He went to the archives and was given permission by the Kennedy family to
see the original photos and x-rays. And examine JFK's clothes.
He based his conclusions on that evidence.
How was he misinformed when he - not you - saw the original evidence?

"It was a single gunshot wound to the back of his head," Cummings said
without hesitation. "It was right where the autopsy doctors said it had
happened."
"The quality is fantastic. Once I saw those photographs, it became very
clear what had happened to President Kennedy . . . It was a single gunshot
wound to the back of the head. Based on the fracture pattern, we can say
there was no shot from the side or the front."
Yea, that pretty much sums it up.

It's amazing how some folks can be so sure of completely faulty data!

Irony alert.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by Spence

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He went to the archives and was given permission by the Kennedy family to
see the original photos and x-rays. And examine JFK's clothes.
He based his conclusions on that evidence.
How was he misinformed when he - not you - saw the original evidence?

"It was a single gunshot wound to the back of his head," Cummings said
without hesitation. "It was right where the autopsy doctors said it had
happened."

And it didn't bother you that he agreed with the autopsy doctors?
That make him the fourth stooge, not counting Shemp.

Post by Spence
"The quality is fantastic. Once I saw those photographs, it became very
clear what had happened to President Kennedy . . . It was a single gunshot
wound to the back of the head. Based on the fracture pattern, we can say
there was no shot from the side or the front."
Yea, that pretty much sums it up.

Yeah, that pretty much sums up your intelligence.

[Herbert Blenner]

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He went to the archives and was given permission by the Kennedy family to
see the original photos and x-rays. And examine JFK's clothes.
He based his conclusions on that evidence.
How was he misinformed when he - not you - saw the original evidence?

How does examining the original X-rays and photographs circumvent the
pitfall produced by the altered wounds?

[mainframetech]

Post by Herbert Blenner

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He went to the archives and was given permission by the Kennedy family to
see the original photos and x-rays. And examine JFK's clothes.
He based his conclusions on that evidence.
How was he misinformed when he - not you - saw the original evidence?

How does examining the original X-rays and photographs circumvent the
pitfall produced by the altered wounds?

Since the X-rays that were leaked were not originals (every one of them
in the archives was a copy) and they make little sense when compared with
the photos that were leaked, we can assume that the whole batch cannot be
trusted.

Take the X-rays we see mixed in with the 'leaked' photos. The amount
of bone missing from the right side over the eye would make a deep concave
depression in the photo of the same area if they were matched.

Chris

[bigdog]

Post by mainframetech

Post by Herbert Blenner

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He went to the archives and was given permission by the Kennedy family to
see the original photos and x-rays. And examine JFK's clothes.
He based his conclusions on that evidence.
How was he misinformed when he - not you - saw the original evidence?

How does examining the original X-rays and photographs circumvent the
pitfall produced by the altered wounds?

Since the X-rays that were leaked were not originals (every one of them
in the archives was a copy) and they make little sense when compared with
the photos that were leaked, we can assume that the whole batch cannot be
trusted.
Take the X-rays we see mixed in with the 'leaked' photos. The amount
of bone missing from the right side over the eye would make a deep concave
depression in the photo of the same area if they were matched.

You'll invent just about any excuse you can to dismiss evidence of
Oswald's obvious guilt.

[Herbert Blenner]

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by Herbert Blenner

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He went to the archives and was given permission by the Kennedy family to
see the original photos and x-rays. And examine JFK's clothes.
He based his conclusions on that evidence.
How was he misinformed when he - not you - saw the original evidence?

How does examining the original X-rays and photographs circumvent the
pitfall produced by the altered wounds?

Since the X-rays that were leaked were not originals (every one of them
in the archives was a copy) and they make little sense when compared with
the photos that were leaked, we can assume that the whole batch cannot be
trusted.
Take the X-rays we see mixed in with the 'leaked' photos. The amount
of bone missing from the right side over the eye would make a deep concave
depression in the photo of the same area if they were matched.

You'll invent just about any excuse you can to dismiss evidence of
Oswald's obvious guilt.

The 15 by 6 mm elliptical and longitudinal scalp wound of entry requires
that Kennedy was practically face down when shot in the head.
Fortunately the ill-defined zone of abrasion discredits this wound, which
disputes motion picture films of the head shot and eyewitness reports.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by Herbert Blenner

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by Herbert Blenner

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He went to the archives and was given permission by the Kennedy family to
see the original photos and x-rays. And examine JFK's clothes.
He based his conclusions on that evidence.
How was he misinformed when he - not you - saw the original evidence?

How does examining the original X-rays and photographs circumvent the
pitfall produced by the altered wounds?

Since the X-rays that were leaked were not originals (every one of them
in the archives was a copy) and they make little sense when compared with
the photos that were leaked, we can assume that the whole batch cannot be
trusted.
Take the X-rays we see mixed in with the 'leaked' photos. The amount
of bone missing from the right side over the eye would make a deep concave
depression in the photo of the same area if they were matched.

You'll invent just about any excuse you can to dismiss evidence of
Oswald's obvious guilt.

The 15 by 6 mm elliptical and longitudinal scalp wound of entry requires

There is no 15 by 6mm elliptical wound. Just the lies of The Three
Stooges.

Post by Herbert Blenner
that Kennedy was practically face down when shot in the head.

Silly.

Post by Herbert Blenner
Fortunately the ill-defined zone of abrasion discredits this wound, which
disputes motion picture films of the head shot and eyewitness reports.

[Herbert Blenner]

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by Herbert Blenner

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by Herbert Blenner

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He went to the archives and was given permission by the Kennedy family to
see the original photos and x-rays. And examine JFK's clothes.
He based his conclusions on that evidence.
How was he misinformed when he - not you - saw the original evidence?

How does examining the original X-rays and photographs circumvent the
pitfall produced by the altered wounds?

Since the X-rays that were leaked were not originals (every one of them
in the archives was a copy) and they make little sense when compared with
the photos that were leaked, we can assume that the whole batch cannot be
trusted.
Take the X-rays we see mixed in with the 'leaked' photos. The amount
of bone missing from the right side over the eye would make a deep concave
depression in the photo of the same area if they were matched.

You'll invent just about any excuse you can to dismiss evidence of
Oswald's obvious guilt.

The 15 by 6 mm elliptical and longitudinal scalp wound of entry requires

There is no 15 by 6mm elliptical wound. Just the lies of The Three
Stooges.

Post by Herbert Blenner
that Kennedy was practically face down when shot in the head.

Silly.

Post by Herbert Blenner
Fortunately the ill-defined zone of abrasion discredits this wound, which
disputes motion picture films of the head shot and eyewitness reports.

The Clark Panel, who studied the autopsy photographs, described the 15 mm
by 6 mm elliptical scalp wound eight years before Humes specified the
shape of his 15 mm by 6 mm scalp wound.

Source: Clark Panel Report - page 7

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md59/html/Image06.htm

Photographs 7, 14, 42, and 43 show the back of the head, the contours of
which have been grossly distorted by extensive fragmentation of the
underlying calvarium. There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the
scalp situated near the midline and high above the hairline. The position
of this wound corresponds to the hole in the skull seen in the lateral
X-ray film #2. (See description of X-ray films.) The long axis of this
wound corresponds to the long axis of the skull. The wound was judged to
be approximately six millimeters wide and 15 millimeters long. The margin
of this wound shows an ill-defined zone of abrasion.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by Herbert Blenner

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by Herbert Blenner

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by Herbert Blenner

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He went to the archives and was given permission by the Kennedy family to
see the original photos and x-rays. And examine JFK's clothes.
He based his conclusions on that evidence.
How was he misinformed when he - not you - saw the original evidence?

How does examining the original X-rays and photographs circumvent the
pitfall produced by the altered wounds?

Since the X-rays that were leaked were not originals (every one of them
in the archives was a copy) and they make little sense when compared with
the photos that were leaked, we can assume that the whole batch cannot be
trusted.
Take the X-rays we see mixed in with the 'leaked' photos. The amount
of bone missing from the right side over the eye would make a deep concave
depression in the photo of the same area if they were matched.

You'll invent just about any excuse you can to dismiss evidence of
Oswald's obvious guilt.

The 15 by 6 mm elliptical and longitudinal scalp wound of entry requires

There is no 15 by 6mm elliptical wound. Just the lies of The Three
Stooges.

Post by Herbert Blenner
that Kennedy was practically face down when shot in the head.

Silly.

Post by Herbert Blenner
Fortunately the ill-defined zone of abrasion discredits this wound, which
disputes motion picture films of the head shot and eyewitness reports.

The Clark Panel, who studied the autopsy photographs, described the 15 mm
by 6 mm elliptical scalp wound eight years before Humes specified the
shape of his 15 mm by 6 mm scalp wound.

They have two different locations for their back of the head entrance
wound. HBF placed it near the EOP. The Clark panel and HSCA placed it 4
inches higher. You just ignore glaring discrepancies like this and call it
the same wound. So now you have wounds that can migrate on the head over
years. First it was near the EOP and then it drifted to the top of the
head.

Post by Herbert Blenner
Source: Clark Panel Report - page 7
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md59/html/Image06.htm
Photographs 7, 14, 42, and 43 show the back of the head, the contours of
which have been grossly distorted by extensive fragmentation of the
underlying calvarium. There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the
scalp situated near the midline and high above the hairline. The position
of this wound corresponds to the hole in the skull seen in the lateral
X-ray film #2. (See description of X-ray films.) The long axis of this
wound corresponds to the long axis of the skull. The wound was judged to
be approximately six millimeters wide and 15 millimeters long. The margin
of this wound shows an ill-defined zone of abrasion.

[Herbert Blenner]

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by Herbert Blenner

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by Herbert Blenner

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by Herbert Blenner

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He went to the archives and was given permission by the Kennedy family to
see the original photos and x-rays. And examine JFK's clothes.
He based his conclusions on that evidence.
How was he misinformed when he - not you - saw the original evidence?

How does examining the original X-rays and photographs circumvent the
pitfall produced by the altered wounds?

Since the X-rays that were leaked were not originals (every one of them
in the archives was a copy) and they make little sense when compared with
the photos that were leaked, we can assume that the whole batch cannot be
trusted.
Take the X-rays we see mixed in with the 'leaked' photos. The amount
of bone missing from the right side over the eye would make a deep concave
depression in the photo of the same area if they were matched.

You'll invent just about any excuse you can to dismiss evidence of
Oswald's obvious guilt.

The 15 by 6 mm elliptical and longitudinal scalp wound of entry requires

There is no 15 by 6mm elliptical wound. Just the lies of The Three
Stooges.

Post by Herbert Blenner
that Kennedy was practically face down when shot in the head.

Silly.

Post by Herbert Blenner
Fortunately the ill-defined zone of abrasion discredits this wound, which
disputes motion picture films of the head shot and eyewitness reports.

The Clark Panel, who studied the autopsy photographs, described the 15 mm
by 6 mm elliptical scalp wound eight years before Humes specified the
shape of his 15 mm by 6 mm scalp wound.

They have two different locations for their back of the head entrance
wound. HBF placed it near the EOP. The Clark panel and HSCA placed it 4
inches higher. You just ignore glaring discrepancies like this and call it
the same wound. So now you have wounds that can migrate on the head over
years. First it was near the EOP and then it drifted to the top of the
head.

Post by Herbert Blenner
Source: Clark Panel Report - page 7
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md59/html/Image06.htm
Photographs 7, 14, 42, and 43 show the back of the head, the contours of
which have been grossly distorted by extensive fragmentation of the
underlying calvarium. There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the
scalp situated near the midline and high above the hairline. The position
of this wound corresponds to the hole in the skull seen in the lateral
X-ray film #2. (See description of X-ray films.) The long axis of this
wound corresponds to the long axis of the skull. The wound was judged to
be approximately six millimeters wide and 15 millimeters long. The margin
of this wound shows an ill-defined zone of abrasion.

Humes and the Forensic Pathology Panels placed their scalp wounds in
essentially the same location of somewhat above the EOP.

Loading Image...

Differences in the location of the skull wound arose since both medical
panels placed the entry in the bone in the cowlick region.

Loading Image...

[mainframetech]

Post by Herbert Blenner

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by Herbert Blenner

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by Herbert Blenner

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by Herbert Blenner

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He went to the archives and was given permission by the Kennedy family to
see the original photos and x-rays. And examine JFK's clothes.
He based his conclusions on that evidence.
How was he misinformed when he - not you - saw the original evidence?

How does examining the original X-rays and photographs circumvent the
pitfall produced by the altered wounds?

Since the X-rays that were leaked were not originals (every one of them
in the archives was a copy) and they make little sense when compared with
the photos that were leaked, we can assume that the whole batch cannot be
trusted.
Take the X-rays we see mixed in with the 'leaked' photos. The amount
of bone missing from the right side over the eye would make a deep concave
depression in the photo of the same area if they were matched.

You'll invent just about any excuse you can to dismiss evidence of
Oswald's obvious guilt.

The 15 by 6 mm elliptical and longitudinal scalp wound of entry requires

There is no 15 by 6mm elliptical wound. Just the lies of The Three
Stooges.

Post by Herbert Blenner
that Kennedy was practically face down when shot in the head.

Silly.

Post by Herbert Blenner
Fortunately the ill-defined zone of abrasion discredits this wound, which
disputes motion picture films of the head shot and eyewitness reports.

The Clark Panel, who studied the autopsy photographs, described the 15 mm
by 6 mm elliptical scalp wound eight years before Humes specified the
shape of his 15 mm by 6 mm scalp wound.

They have two different locations for their back of the head entrance
wound. HBF placed it near the EOP. The Clark panel and HSCA placed it 4
inches higher. You just ignore glaring discrepancies like this and call it
the same wound. So now you have wounds that can migrate on the head over
years. First it was near the EOP and then it drifted to the top of the
head.

Post by Herbert Blenner
Source: Clark Panel Report - page 7
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md59/html/Image06.htm
Photographs 7, 14, 42, and 43 show the back of the head, the contours of
which have been grossly distorted by extensive fragmentation of the
underlying calvarium. There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the
scalp situated near the midline and high above the hairline. The position
of this wound corresponds to the hole in the skull seen in the lateral
X-ray film #2. (See description of X-ray films.) The long axis of this
wound corresponds to the long axis of the skull. The wound was judged to
be approximately six millimeters wide and 15 millimeters long. The margin
of this wound shows an ill-defined zone of abrasion.

Humes and the Forensic Pathology Panels placed their scalp wounds in
essentially the same location of somewhat above the EOP.
http://hdblenner.com/temps/rydberganddox.jpg
Differences in the location of the skull wound arose since both medical
panels placed the entry in the bone in the cowlick region.
http://hdblenner.com/temps/headwounds.jpg

Here's a fun exercise; Take the first photo which is an Ida Dox drawing showing the bullet hole in the BOH near the end of the ruler and to the right of it, and load it up onto your desktop. Then take the second photo, which is the real autopsy photo that supposedly the drawing was made from, load it up, and see if the bullet hole was ever there...:)

First:
Loading Image...

Second:
Loading Image...

On the real photo there is a small red spot that the HSCA wanted to say was the bullet hole, but all the pathologists rejected that. The HSCA went with it anyway!

If you can't find the bullet hole on ANY of the photos, don't feel bad, no one else could be sure it was there either...:) The prosectors all said there was something wrong with the autopsy photos, that they weren't all there and they didn't show the large defect in the BOH. What a yock!

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by mainframetech

Post by Herbert Blenner

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by Herbert Blenner

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by Herbert Blenner

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by Herbert Blenner

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He went to the archives and was given permission by the Kennedy family to
see the original photos and x-rays. And examine JFK's clothes.
He based his conclusions on that evidence.
How was he misinformed when he - not you - saw the original evidence?

How does examining the original X-rays and photographs circumvent the
pitfall produced by the altered wounds?

Since the X-rays that were leaked were not originals (every one of them
in the archives was a copy) and they make little sense when compared with
the photos that were leaked, we can assume that the whole batch cannot be
trusted.
Take the X-rays we see mixed in with the 'leaked' photos. The amount
of bone missing from the right side over the eye would make a deep concave
depression in the photo of the same area if they were matched.

You'll invent just about any excuse you can to dismiss evidence of
Oswald's obvious guilt.

The 15 by 6 mm elliptical and longitudinal scalp wound of entry requires

There is no 15 by 6mm elliptical wound. Just the lies of The Three
Stooges.

Post by Herbert Blenner
that Kennedy was practically face down when shot in the head.

Silly.

Post by Herbert Blenner
Fortunately the ill-defined zone of abrasion discredits this wound, which
disputes motion picture films of the head shot and eyewitness reports.

The Clark Panel, who studied the autopsy photographs, described the 15 mm
by 6 mm elliptical scalp wound eight years before Humes specified the
shape of his 15 mm by 6 mm scalp wound.

They have two different locations for their back of the head entrance
wound. HBF placed it near the EOP. The Clark panel and HSCA placed it 4
inches higher. You just ignore glaring discrepancies like this and call it
the same wound. So now you have wounds that can migrate on the head over
years. First it was near the EOP and then it drifted to the top of the
head.

Post by Herbert Blenner
Source: Clark Panel Report - page 7
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md59/html/Image06.htm
Photographs 7, 14, 42, and 43 show the back of the head, the contours of
which have been grossly distorted by extensive fragmentation of the
underlying calvarium. There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the
scalp situated near the midline and high above the hairline. The position
of this wound corresponds to the hole in the skull seen in the lateral
X-ray film #2. (See description of X-ray films.) The long axis of this
wound corresponds to the long axis of the skull. The wound was judged to
be approximately six millimeters wide and 15 millimeters long. The margin
of this wound shows an ill-defined zone of abrasion.

Humes and the Forensic Pathology Panels placed their scalp wounds in
essentially the same location of somewhat above the EOP.
http://hdblenner.com/temps/rydberganddox.jpg
Differences in the location of the skull wound arose since both medical
panels placed the entry in the bone in the cowlick region.
http://hdblenner.com/temps/headwounds.jpg

Here's a fun exercise; Take the first photo which is an Ida Dox drawing showing the bullet hole in the BOH near the end of the ruler and to the right of it, and load it up onto your desktop. Then take the second photo, which is the real autopsy photo that supposedly the drawing was made from, load it up, and see if the bullet hole was ever there...:)

Could you possibly post worse quality photos so that we can't see
anything? You don't have the autopsy photos, do you?

Post by mainframetech
https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/screenhunter_07-aug-20-19-45.jpg
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
On the real photo there is a small red spot that the HSCA wanted to say was the bullet hole, but all the pathologists rejected that. The HSCA went with it anyway!
If you can't find the bullet hole on ANY of the photos, don't feel bad, no one else could be sure it was there either...:) The prosectors all said there was something wrong with the autopsy photos, that they weren't all there and they didn't show the large defect in the BOH. What a yock!

But can you see the bloodclot that Humes pointed out? Remember how Humes'
buddy didn't want them writing down what was being said.

Post by mainframetech
Chris

[mainframetech]

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He went to the archives and was given permission by the Kennedy family to
see the original photos and x-rays. And examine JFK's clothes.
He based his conclusions on that evidence.
How was he misinformed when he - not you - saw the original evidence?

Based on information from Jerrol Custer, the 'original' X-rays aren't
in the archives. A researcher went to the archives and viewed the X-rays
and photos and such, and he spoke with Custer, Bethesda X-ray Technician
who assisted at the autopsy, and Custer said that what was described to
him were NOT the original X-rays. They were all copies, some were not
even taken by him. Yet he took ALL the X-rays that night. If ALL X-rays
were copies, then the X-rays in the archives can't be trusted. Not that
the ones that were 'leaked' could be trusted either!

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He went to the archives and was given permission by the Kennedy family to
see the original photos and x-rays. And examine JFK's clothes.
He based his conclusions on that evidence.
How was he misinformed when he - not you - saw the original evidence?

He was misinformed by gross stupidity. And you don't know exactly which
autopsy photos he was allowed to see. Maybe only 5 or 6 very poor
quality 6th generation prints. Copies of copies of copies.

How could he look at the photos of the head as the HSCA did and place
the entrance wound near the EOP? Even the HSCA knew enough to move it up
4 inches.

And he did not know about contrecoup.

[Herbert Blenner]

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He went to the archives and was given permission by the Kennedy family to
see the original photos and x-rays. And examine JFK's clothes.
He based his conclusions on that evidence.
How was he misinformed when he - not you - saw the original evidence?

He was misinformed by gross stupidity. And you don't know exactly which
autopsy photos he was allowed to see. Maybe only 5 or 6 very poor
quality 6th generation prints. Copies of copies of copies.
How could he look at the photos of the head as the HSCA did and place
the entrance wound near the EOP? Even the HSCA knew enough to move it up
4 inches.
And he did not know about contrecoup.

The HSCA repeated the error made by the Clark Panel who placed the entry
into the skull four inches above the EOP. This erroneous location would
have been at the top of the head.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by Herbert Blenner

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He went to the archives and was given permission by the Kennedy family to
see the original photos and x-rays. And examine JFK's clothes.
He based his conclusions on that evidence.
How was he misinformed when he - not you - saw the original evidence?

He was misinformed by gross stupidity. And you don't know exactly which
autopsy photos he was allowed to see. Maybe only 5 or 6 very poor
quality 6th generation prints. Copies of copies of copies.
How could he look at the photos of the head as the HSCA did and place
the entrance wound near the EOP? Even the HSCA knew enough to move it up
4 inches.
And he did not know about contrecoup.

The HSCA repeated the error made by the Clark Panel who placed the entry
into the skull four inches above the EOP. This erroneous location would
have been at the top of the head.

So you endorse the Four Stooges? SHOW me the entrance wound near the EOP.
Show me your trajectory through the head using the EOP entrance wound.

[Herbert Blenner]

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by Herbert Blenner

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He went to the archives and was given permission by the Kennedy family to
see the original photos and x-rays. And examine JFK's clothes.
He based his conclusions on that evidence.
How was he misinformed when he - not you - saw the original evidence?

He was misinformed by gross stupidity. And you don't know exactly which
autopsy photos he was allowed to see. Maybe only 5 or 6 very poor
quality 6th generation prints. Copies of copies of copies.
How could he look at the photos of the head as the HSCA did and place
the entrance wound near the EOP? Even the HSCA knew enough to move it up
4 inches.
And he did not know about contrecoup.

The HSCA repeated the error made by the Clark Panel who placed the entry
into the skull four inches above the EOP. This erroneous location would
have been at the top of the head.

So you endorse the Four Stooges? SHOW me the entrance wound near the EOP.
Show me your trajectory through the head using the EOP entrance wound.

You have much to learn, Marsh. Commander Humes described the same 15 mm by
6 mm elliptical scalp wound that was discussed by the Clark and the
Forensic Pathology Panels. These panels attempted to hijack the scalp
wound by misplacing it four inches above the EOP.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by Herbert Blenner

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by Herbert Blenner

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He went to the archives and was given permission by the Kennedy family to
see the original photos and x-rays. And examine JFK's clothes.
He based his conclusions on that evidence.
How was he misinformed when he - not you - saw the original evidence?

He was misinformed by gross stupidity. And you don't know exactly which
autopsy photos he was allowed to see. Maybe only 5 or 6 very poor
quality 6th generation prints. Copies of copies of copies.
How could he look at the photos of the head as the HSCA did and place
the entrance wound near the EOP? Even the HSCA knew enough to move it up
4 inches.
And he did not know about contrecoup.

The HSCA repeated the error made by the Clark Panel who placed the entry
into the skull four inches above the EOP. This erroneous location would
have been at the top of the head.

So you endorse the Four Stooges? SHOW me the entrance wound near the EOP.
Show me your trajectory through the head using the EOP entrance wound.

You have much to learn, Marsh. Commander Humes described the same 15 mm by
6 mm elliptical scalp wound that was discussed by the Clark and the
Forensic Pathology Panels. These panels attempted to hijack the scalp
wound by misplacing it four inches above the EOP.

No. His WOUND was a dab of tissue on top of the hair near the hairline.
So you believe the Three Stooges were the heroes and all the experts
after them are part of a cover up. 100 forensic pathologists can't tell
the difference between EOP and cowlick?
That's your conspiracy theory? Or that the whole assassination was fake
and JFK is living in a retirement home in Florida.
Maybe that'll be on the new X-Files.

[Herbert Blenner]

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by Herbert Blenner

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by Herbert Blenner

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He went to the archives and was given permission by the Kennedy family to
see the original photos and x-rays. And examine JFK's clothes.
He based his conclusions on that evidence.
How was he misinformed when he - not you - saw the original evidence?

He was misinformed by gross stupidity. And you don't know exactly which
autopsy photos he was allowed to see. Maybe only 5 or 6 very poor
quality 6th generation prints. Copies of copies of copies.
How could he look at the photos of the head as the HSCA did and place
the entrance wound near the EOP? Even the HSCA knew enough to move it up
4 inches.
And he did not know about contrecoup.

The HSCA repeated the error made by the Clark Panel who placed the entry
into the skull four inches above the EOP. This erroneous location would
have been at the top of the head.

So you endorse the Four Stooges? SHOW me the entrance wound near the EOP.
Show me your trajectory through the head using the EOP entrance wound.

You have much to learn, Marsh. Commander Humes described the same 15 mm by
6 mm elliptical scalp wound that was discussed by the Clark and the
Forensic Pathology Panels. These panels attempted to hijack the scalp
wound by misplacing it four inches above the EOP.

No. His WOUND was a dab of tissue on top of the hair near the hairline.
So you believe the Three Stooges were the heroes and all the experts
after them are part of a cover up. 100 forensic pathologists can't tell
the difference between EOP and cowlick?
That's your conspiracy theory? Or that the whole assassination was fake
and JFK is living in a retirement home in Florida.
Maybe that'll be on the new X-Files.

That dab of tissue did not have dimensions of 15 mm by 6 mm and an
elliptical shape.


When are you going to learn the medical evidence, Marsh? Slightly above
the EOP never has been near the hairline.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by Herbert Blenner

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by Herbert Blenner

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by Herbert Blenner

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He went to the archives and was given permission by the Kennedy family to
see the original photos and x-rays. And examine JFK's clothes.
He based his conclusions on that evidence.
How was he misinformed when he - not you - saw the original evidence?

He was misinformed by gross stupidity. And you don't know exactly which
autopsy photos he was allowed to see. Maybe only 5 or 6 very poor
quality 6th generation prints. Copies of copies of copies.
How could he look at the photos of the head as the HSCA did and place
the entrance wound near the EOP? Even the HSCA knew enough to move it up
4 inches.
And he did not know about contrecoup.

The HSCA repeated the error made by the Clark Panel who placed the entry
into the skull four inches above the EOP. This erroneous location would
have been at the top of the head.

So you endorse the Four Stooges? SHOW me the entrance wound near the EOP.
Show me your trajectory through the head using the EOP entrance wound.

You have much to learn, Marsh. Commander Humes described the same 15 mm by
6 mm elliptical scalp wound that was discussed by the Clark and the
Forensic Pathology Panels. These panels attempted to hijack the scalp
wound by misplacing it four inches above the EOP.

No. His WOUND was a dab of tissue on top of the hair near the hairline.
So you believe the Three Stooges were the heroes and all the experts
after them are part of a cover up. 100 forensic pathologists can't tell
the difference between EOP and cowlick?
That's your conspiracy theory? Or that the whole assassination was fake
and JFK is living in a retirement home in Florida.
Maybe that'll be on the new X-Files.

That dab of tissue did not have dimensions of 15 mm by 6 mm and an
elliptical shape.
When are you going to learn the medical evidence, Marsh? Slightly above
the EOP never has been near the hairline.

Don't blame me. That is what the autopsy doctors said. Call them The
Three Stooges.

[t***@gmail.com]

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He was using Kennedy's ACTUAL X-ray in the presentation he was giving!
Once again, you simply DON'T know what you're talking about.

Corrective Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[mainframetech]

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He was using Kennedy's ACTUAL X-ray in the presentation he was giving!
Once again, you simply DON'T know what you're talking about.
Corrective Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

::: sigh :::

Try matching up the X-rays in the photo with the ones that were 'leaked'
and they don't match. I wonder how you would know that those were the
original X-rays, since the Technician that took the original X-rays said
what was in the archives were all copies, some of which he never took.
And he took ALL the X-rays that night.

Perhaps you've taken over as the one who doesn't know what he's talking
about.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by mainframetech

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He was using Kennedy's ACTUAL X-ray in the presentation he was giving!
Once again, you simply DON'T know what you're talking about.
Corrective Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

Try matching up the X-rays in the photo with the ones that were 'leaked'

What x-rays in the photo? Which photo? Show me.

Post by mainframetech
and they don't match. I wonder how you would know that those were the

The X-rays were not leaked. They were published by the HSCA. Or rather
copies were scanned in and published.

Post by mainframetech
original X-rays, since the Technician that took the original X-rays said
what was in the archives were all copies, some of which he never took.
And he took ALL the X-rays that night.
Perhaps you've taken over as the one who doesn't know what he's talking
about.
Chris

[t***@gmail.com]

Post by mainframetech

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He was using Kennedy's ACTUAL X-ray in the presentation he was giving!
Once again, you simply DON'T know what you're talking about.
Corrective Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

Try matching up the X-rays in the photo with the ones that were 'leaked'

You mean published by the HSCA?

Post by mainframetech
and they don't match. I wonder how you would know that those were the

They match. What are you on about?

Post by mainframetech
original X-rays, since the Technician that took the original X-rays said
what was in the archives were all copies, some of which he never took.

The HSCA computer enhanced them for better clarity. Maybe that is why he
didn't recognize them.

Post by mainframetech
And he took ALL the X-rays that night.
Perhaps you've taken over as the one who doesn't know what he's talking
about.

I think I've got a fair way to go before I can overtake you...

Post by mainframetech
Chris

Here is Kennedy's post mortem skull X-ray. It is the same one the guy is
using in the video:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm

Here is Kennedy's pre mortem skull X-ray, which appears to be the same as
the first two images he puts up:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0062a.htm

I mean, words just FAIL me, Chris.

How many things are you planning to pronounce upon that you appear to know
absolutely NOTHING about?

Astounded Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[mainframetech]

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He was using Kennedy's ACTUAL X-ray in the presentation he was giving!
Once again, you simply DON'T know what you're talking about.
Corrective Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

Try matching up the X-rays in the photo with the ones that were 'leaked'

You mean published by the HSCA?

Post by mainframetech
and they don't match. I wonder how you would know that those were the

They match. What are you on about?

Post by mainframetech
original X-rays, since the Technician that took the original X-rays said
what was in the archives were all copies, some of which he never took.

The HSCA computer enhanced them for better clarity. Maybe that is why he
didn't recognize them.

Post by mainframetech
And he took ALL the X-rays that night.
Perhaps you've taken over as the one who doesn't know what he's talking
about.

I think I've got a fair way to go before I can overtake you...

Post by mainframetech
Chris

Here is Kennedy's post mortem skull X-ray. It is the same one the guy is
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm

Nope, doesn't look like it.

Post by t***@gmail.com
Here is Kennedy's pre mortem skull X-ray, which appears to be the same as
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0062a.htm

Now that one has possibilities.

Post by t***@gmail.com
I mean, words just FAIL me, Chris.

It's about time.

Post by t***@gmail.com
How many things are you planning to pronounce upon that you appear to know
absolutely NOTHING about?
Astounded Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

Oh, about 3 times less than yourself. Are we dealing with your opinion
again? You've had a hard time with evidence, I guess with opinion you
can't go as wrong as before.

Chris

[t***@gmail.com]

Post by mainframetech

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He was using Kennedy's ACTUAL X-ray in the presentation he was giving!
Once again, you simply DON'T know what you're talking about.
Corrective Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

Try matching up the X-rays in the photo with the ones that were 'leaked'

You mean published by the HSCA?

Post by mainframetech
and they don't match. I wonder how you would know that those were the

They match. What are you on about?

Post by mainframetech
original X-rays, since the Technician that took the original X-rays said
what was in the archives were all copies, some of which he never took.

The HSCA computer enhanced them for better clarity. Maybe that is why he
didn't recognize them.

Post by mainframetech
And he took ALL the X-rays that night.
Perhaps you've taken over as the one who doesn't know what he's talking
about.

I think I've got a fair way to go before I can overtake you...

Post by mainframetech
Chris

Here is Kennedy's post mortem skull X-ray. It is the same one the guy is
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm

Nope, doesn't look like it.

Doesn't look like it?!! Then why did you write this?!

QUOTE ON:

You got it! I checked again, and the speaker had a JFK X-ray up next to
the 2 samples he was using at the beginning of his lecture. That allowed
anyone to see that the 2 at the beginning were not from JFK.

QUOTE OFF

Post by mainframetech

Post by t***@gmail.com
Here is Kennedy's pre mortem skull X-ray, which appears to be the same as
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0062a.htm

Now that one has possibilities.

Oh, you're admitting it is JFK? But why did you say this?:

QUOTE ON:

That allowed anyone to see that the 2 at the beginning were not from
JFK.

QUOTE OFF

Post by mainframetech

Post by t***@gmail.com
I mean, words just FAIL me, Chris.

It's about time.

You have totally gobsmacked me now...

Post by mainframetech

Post by t***@gmail.com
How many things are you planning to pronounce upon that you appear to know
absolutely NOTHING about?
Astounded Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

Oh, about 3 times less than yourself. Are we dealing with your opinion
again? You've had a hard time with evidence, I guess with opinion you
can't go as wrong as before.
Chris

I think a fellow like you, who in one post on the thread admits one of the
images is Kennedy but claims that the other isn't and then completely
reverses himself in another reply on the SAME thread is a fellow with a
shred of credibility, Chris.

You should simply get on with it and admit that BOTH X-rays are of Kennedy
and stop digging yourself a bigger and bigger hole with your various
replies to people.

As I said, you don't have a SHRED of credibility left after this latest
effort.

Truly Astounded Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[mainframetech]

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He was using Kennedy's ACTUAL X-ray in the presentation he was giving!
Once again, you simply DON'T know what you're talking about.
Corrective Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

Try matching up the X-rays in the photo with the ones that were 'leaked'

You mean published by the HSCA?

Post by mainframetech
and they don't match. I wonder how you would know that those were the

They match. What are you on about?

Post by mainframetech
original X-rays, since the Technician that took the original X-rays said
what was in the archives were all copies, some of which he never took.

The HSCA computer enhanced them for better clarity. Maybe that is why he
didn't recognize them.

Post by mainframetech
And he took ALL the X-rays that night.
Perhaps you've taken over as the one who doesn't know what he's talking
about.

I think I've got a fair way to go before I can overtake you...

Post by mainframetech
Chris

Here is Kennedy's post mortem skull X-ray. It is the same one the guy is
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm

Nope, doesn't look like it.

Doesn't look like it?!! Then why did you write this?!
You got it! I checked again, and the speaker had a JFK X-ray up next to
the 2 samples he was using at the beginning of his lecture. That allowed
anyone to see that the 2 at the beginning were not from JFK.
QUOTE OFF

Post by mainframetech

Post by t***@gmail.com
Here is Kennedy's pre mortem skull X-ray, which appears to be the same as
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0062a.htm

Now that one has possibilities.

I said it has possibilities...I can see where I said that. Don't you
read English? Possibilities is NOT a complete approval, it's a
conditional.

Post by t***@gmail.com
That allowed anyone to see that the 2 at the beginning were not from
JFK.
QUOTE OFF

Post by mainframetech

Post by t***@gmail.com
I mean, words just FAIL me, Chris.

It's about time.

You have totally gobsmacked me now...

Post by mainframetech

Post by t***@gmail.com
How many things are you planning to pronounce upon that you appear to know
absolutely NOTHING about?
Astounded Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

Oh, about 3 times less than yourself. Are we dealing with your opinion
again? You've had a hard time with evidence, I guess with opinion you
can't go as wrong as before.
Chris

I think a fellow like you, who in one post on the thread admits one of the
images is Kennedy but claims that the other isn't and then completely
reverses himself in another reply on the SAME thread is a fellow with a
shred of credibility, Chris.

I did NOT agree that one was JFK, I considered that it has
possibilities. Try and see what is written rather than something else.

Post by t***@gmail.com
You should simply get on with it and admit that BOTH X-rays are of Kennedy
and stop digging yourself a bigger and bigger hole with your various
replies to people.
As I said, you don't have a SHRED of credibility left after this latest
effort.

I'm not much interested in what YOU call credibility. Remember, you're
a firm believer in wild WC lawyer's theories! The things I bring out are
backed up by official record. You've just wasted a lot of time just on
opinion of whether photos are of the same X-rays or not, based on opinion
of whether they are or not. And it just isn't that important to the
general scheme of things.

Post by t***@gmail.com
Truly Astounded Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

My apologies, I haven't been paying as much attention to your arguments
about X-rays in pictures. I made a comment about what the photo looked
like to me, and off you went.

Chris

[t***@gmail.com]

Post by mainframetech

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He was using Kennedy's ACTUAL X-ray in the presentation he was giving!
Once again, you simply DON'T know what you're talking about.
Corrective Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

Try matching up the X-rays in the photo with the ones that were 'leaked'

You mean published by the HSCA?

Post by mainframetech
and they don't match. I wonder how you would know that those were the

They match. What are you on about?

Post by mainframetech
original X-rays, since the Technician that took the original X-rays said
what was in the archives were all copies, some of which he never took.

The HSCA computer enhanced them for better clarity. Maybe that is why he
didn't recognize them.

Post by mainframetech
And he took ALL the X-rays that night.
Perhaps you've taken over as the one who doesn't know what he's talking
about.

I think I've got a fair way to go before I can overtake you...

Post by mainframetech
Chris

Here is Kennedy's post mortem skull X-ray. It is the same one the guy is
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm

Nope, doesn't look like it.

Doesn't look like it?!! Then why did you write this?!
You got it! I checked again, and the speaker had a JFK X-ray up next to
the 2 samples he was using at the beginning of his lecture. That allowed
anyone to see that the 2 at the beginning were not from JFK.
QUOTE OFF

Post by mainframetech

Post by t***@gmail.com
Here is Kennedy's pre mortem skull X-ray, which appears to be the same as
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0062a.htm

Now that one has possibilities.

I said it has possibilities...I can see where I said that. Don't you
read English? Possibilities is NOT a complete approval, it's a
conditional.

Well it quite obviously IS JFK's pre-mortem X-ray as published by the
HSCA. Maybe you should open your eyes once in awhile.

Post by mainframetech

Post by t***@gmail.com
That allowed anyone to see that the 2 at the beginning were not from
JFK.
QUOTE OFF

Post by mainframetech

Post by t***@gmail.com
I mean, words just FAIL me, Chris.

It's about time.

You have totally gobsmacked me now...

Post by mainframetech

Post by t***@gmail.com
How many things are you planning to pronounce upon that you appear to know
absolutely NOTHING about?
Astounded Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

Oh, about 3 times less than yourself. Are we dealing with your opinion
again? You've had a hard time with evidence, I guess with opinion you
can't go as wrong as before.
Chris

I think a fellow like you, who in one post on the thread admits one of the
images is Kennedy but claims that the other isn't and then completely
reverses himself in another reply on the SAME thread is a fellow with a
shred of credibility, Chris.

I did NOT agree that one was JFK, I considered that it has
possibilities. Try and see what is written rather than something else.

Er, but didn't you say THIS in a response to John Corbett on this very
thread?:

QUOTE ON:

You got it! I checked again, and the speaker had a JFK X-ray up next to
the 2 samples he was using at the beginning of his lecture. That allowed
anyone to see that the 2 at the beginning were not from JFK.

QUOTE OFF

I would have thought that when you wrote the words *the speaker had a JFK
X-ray up next to the 2 samples he was using* you were indicating to
Corbett that the video presentation DID feature a JFK X-ray being used by
the speaker.

This now not the case?

I'm not really following the arguments you are making anymore, though it
couldn't be MORE obvious that the image on the right in the video IS JFK's
very well known X-ray as published by the HSCA:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm

< balance of bumpf snipped>

Chris, I'm starting to worry about you...

Concerned Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[s***@yahoo.com]

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He was using Kennedy's ACTUAL X-ray in the presentation he was giving!
Once again, you simply DON'T know what you're talking about.
Corrective Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

"He was using Kennedy's ACTUAL X-ray in the presentation he was giving!"

No, he was using copies of the x-rays not the originals.

The Kennedy family granted him permission to see the original x-rays and
photos and clothing. It was from that analysis that he made his
conclusions.

He said the originals are far superior in clarity then the ones publicly
available.

[mainframetech]

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He was using Kennedy's ACTUAL X-ray in the presentation he was giving!
Once again, you simply DON'T know what you're talking about.
Corrective Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

"He was using Kennedy's ACTUAL X-ray in the presentation he was giving!"
No, he was using copies of the x-rays not the originals.
The Kennedy family granted him permission to see the original x-rays and
photos and clothing. It was from that analysis that he made his
conclusions.
He said the originals are far superior in clarity then the ones publicly
available.

when a researcher looked at those 'original' X-rays in the archives,
controlled by the Kennedy family, Jerrol Custer was able to determine that
they were all copies in the archive. And some were X-rays that he didn't
even take, yet he was the only one that night that took X-rays!

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He was using Kennedy's ACTUAL X-ray in the presentation he was giving!
Once again, you simply DON'T know what you're talking about.
Corrective Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

"He was using Kennedy's ACTUAL X-ray in the presentation he was giving!"
No, he was using copies of the x-rays not the originals.
The Kennedy family granted him permission to see the original x-rays and
photos and clothing. It was from that analysis that he made his
conclusions.

Show me which materials he saw.
Are you vouching for him?
Do you agree with where he placed the entrance wound? Near the EOP?

Loading Image...

Dr. Peter Cummings, who examined President Kennedy?s autopsy records,
uses a 3-D model of JFK?s skull to show where the bullet hit.

Does that agree with the HSCA? Or do you claim that the HSCA lied and
HBF were right?

Post by s***@yahoo.com
He said the originals are far superior in clarity then the ones publicly
available.

[t***@gmail.com]

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He was using Kennedy's ACTUAL X-ray in the presentation he was giving!
Once again, you simply DON'T know what you're talking about.
Corrective Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

"He was using Kennedy's ACTUAL X-ray in the presentation he was giving!"
No, he was using copies of the x-rays not the originals.
The Kennedy family granted him permission to see the original x-rays and
photos and clothing. It was from that analysis that he made his
conclusions.
He said the originals are far superior in clarity then the ones publicly
available.

Minor point. The point is that the X-ray being used in the presentation is
of Kennedy's skull, post mortem:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm

And it appears that the first two he puts up are of Kennedy's skull pre
mortem:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0062a.htm

I think you might have taken what I originally posted too literally.

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[s***@yahoo.com]

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He was using Kennedy's ACTUAL X-ray in the presentation he was giving!
Once again, you simply DON'T know what you're talking about.
Corrective Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

"He was using Kennedy's ACTUAL X-ray in the presentation he was giving!"
No, he was using copies of the x-rays not the originals.
The Kennedy family granted him permission to see the original x-rays and
photos and clothing. It was from that analysis that he made his
conclusions.
He said the originals are far superior in clarity then the ones publicly
available.

Minor point. The point is that the X-ray being used in the presentation is
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
And it appears that the first two he puts up are of Kennedy's skull pre
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0062a.htm
I think you might have taken what I originally posted too literally.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

Maybe so. I was distinguishing between the ones shown in the film and the
original ones he saw at the National Archives.

The CT crowd would say, "What about the originals!!? and he can answer, "I
saw them."

Plus JFK's clothes.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He was using Kennedy's ACTUAL X-ray in the presentation he was giving!
Once again, you simply DON'T know what you're talking about.
Corrective Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

"He was using Kennedy's ACTUAL X-ray in the presentation he was giving!"
No, he was using copies of the x-rays not the originals.
The Kennedy family granted him permission to see the original x-rays and
photos and clothing. It was from that analysis that he made his
conclusions.
He said the originals are far superior in clarity then the ones publicly
available.

Minor point. The point is that the X-ray being used in the presentation is
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
And it appears that the first two he puts up are of Kennedy's skull pre
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0062a.htm
I think you might have taken what I originally posted too literally.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

Maybe so. I was distinguishing between the ones shown in the film and the
original ones he saw at the National Archives.

Show me. You don't know what originals he saw at the National Archives.

Post by s***@yahoo.com
The CT crowd would say, "What about the originals!!? and he can answer, "I
saw them."

Not truthfully.

Post by s***@yahoo.com
Plus JFK's clothes.

Maybe, maybe not.

[s***@yahoo.com]

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He was using Kennedy's ACTUAL X-ray in the presentation he was giving!
Once again, you simply DON'T know what you're talking about.
Corrective Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

"He was using Kennedy's ACTUAL X-ray in the presentation he was giving!"
No, he was using copies of the x-rays not the originals.
The Kennedy family granted him permission to see the original x-rays and
photos and clothing. It was from that analysis that he made his
conclusions.
He said the originals are far superior in clarity then the ones publicly
available.

Minor point. The point is that the X-ray being used in the presentation is
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
And it appears that the first two he puts up are of Kennedy's skull pre
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0062a.htm
I think you might have taken what I originally posted too literally.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

Maybe so. I was distinguishing between the ones shown in the film and the
original ones he saw at the National Archives.

Show me. You don't know what originals he saw at the National Archives.

Post by s***@yahoo.com
The CT crowd would say, "What about the originals!!? and he can answer, "I
saw them."

Not truthfully.

Post by s***@yahoo.com
Plus JFK's clothes.

Maybe, maybe not.

"Show me. You don't know what originals he saw at the National Archives."

????

You're right, I didn't accompany him when he went to the NA and then
looked over his shoulder as he viewed the material. And then (somehow?)
verified the material he viewed.

Even if I did he could have been a CIA double. Or a fake NA building that
the CIA put together. Everything was a hologram.

You got me there.

[mainframetech]

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He was using Kennedy's ACTUAL X-ray in the presentation he was giving!
Once again, you simply DON'T know what you're talking about.
Corrective Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

"He was using Kennedy's ACTUAL X-ray in the presentation he was giving!"
No, he was using copies of the x-rays not the originals.
The Kennedy family granted him permission to see the original x-rays and
photos and clothing. It was from that analysis that he made his
conclusions.
He said the originals are far superior in clarity then the ones publicly
available.

Minor point. The point is that the X-ray being used in the presentation is
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
And it appears that the first two he puts up are of Kennedy's skull pre
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0062a.htm
I think you might have taken what I originally posted too literally.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

Ah, is that a mistake for us all?

And tell me, how did you do the comparison from one set of X-rays to
the other? Just your own vision?

Chris

[Spence]

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

He was using Kennedy's ACTUAL X-ray in the presentation he was giving!
Once again, you simply DON'T know what you're talking about.
Corrective Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

Ouch, that's going to leave a mark.

[Spence]

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

Care to retract that BS statement Chris?

[bigdog]

Post by Spence

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

Care to retract that BS statement Chris?

Of course he won't. He'll just double down.

[mainframetech]

Post by bigdog

Post by Spence

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

Care to retract that BS statement Chris?

Of course he won't. He'll just double down.

You got it! I checked again, and the speaker had a JFK X-ray up next to
the 2 samples he was using at the beginning of his lecture. That allowed
anyone to see that the 2 at the beginning were not from JFK.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by Spence

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

Care to retract that BS statement Chris?

Of course he won't. He'll just double down.

You got it! I checked again, and the speaker had a JFK X-ray up next to
the 2 samples he was using at the beginning of his lecture. That allowed
anyone to see that the 2 at the beginning were not from JFK.

Show me the lecture.

Post by mainframetech
Chris

[t***@gmail.com]

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by Spence

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

Care to retract that BS statement Chris?

Of course he won't. He'll just double down.

You got it! I checked again, and the speaker had a JFK X-ray up next to
the 2 samples he was using at the beginning of his lecture. That allowed
anyone to see that the 2 at the beginning were not from JFK.
Chris

Er, are you sure? The first TWO X-rays he puts up appear to be JFK's
pre-mortem X-ray with differing fracture lines drawn on them. HSCA
published pre-mortem image is here:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0062a.htm

It looks like you've got it wrong AGAIN, Chris!

You've already rolled on the JFK autopsy X-ray though, of course, you were
not ACTUALLY wrong on that, according to you. Now this.

No doubt Tony Marsh will be along soon to run a bit of screen interference
for you, simply in the interest of <snicker> *truth* you understand, and
you can disown this LATEST faux pas as well.

KUTGW, Chris!

Truly Astounded Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[t***@gmail.com]

Post by bigdog

Post by Spence

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

Care to retract that BS statement Chris?

Of course he won't. He'll just double down.

LOL! You know, I think that that is just about an absolute CERTAINTY,
John!

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[mainframetech]

Post by Spence

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

Care to retract that BS statement Chris?

Of course not, and if you have doubts just state them and your proof
that my comment is wrong.

Did you see the X-rays in the photo that were up on the wall? They
weren't like any of the 'leaked' X-rays. Tell me how you know otherwise.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by mainframetech

Post by Spence

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

Poor fellow was misinformed! And the X-rays he was using as examples
had nothing to do with the X-rays that we've seen that were supposedly
from the autopsy.
Chris

Care to retract that BS statement Chris?

Of course not, and if you have doubts just state them and your proof
that my comment is wrong.
Did you see the X-rays in the photo that were up on the wall? They
weren't like any of the 'leaked' X-rays. Tell me how you know otherwise.
Chris

SHOW us what you mean.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

I hope you don't expect us to believe that just because it came from
Boston. Look at where he placed the entrance wound on the back of the
head. Just above the EOP, straight from the autopsy doctors and WC
exhibits. Idiot.

[claviger]

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

JFK Skull Fracture Lines 6:57

[mainframetech]

Post by claviger

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

JFK Skull Fracture Lines 6:57
http://youtu.be/yiKrR7BLFv0

Since much of the damage to the skull was done by Humes and Boswell
BEFORE the autopsy, any guesswork later about the fractures and other
wounds would be foolish. Until it is known exactly what damage was done
by them during their clandestine work, scientists are in the dark, whether
they know it or not, and their efforts are wasted.

Chris

[claviger]

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

JFK Skull Fracture Lines 6:57
http://youtu.be/yiKrR7BLFv0

Since much of the damage to the skull was done by Humes and Boswell
BEFORE the autopsy,

Normally the skull cap is removed with a saw. You say two Navy
pathologists broke into the skull cap to create a false wound. What kind
of medical tools were used to puncture and fracture the skull cap?

Post by mainframetech
any guesswork later about the fractures and other wounds would be foolish.

Isn't it curious that all fractures that show up in the X-rays lead back
to a small puncture wound in back of the skull? How did the prosectors
manage to do that since you claim there was a large hole back there?
Where did they get the bone pieces to fake this X-ray?

HSCA Appendix Volume 7
Figure 20, Page 112
Loading Image...

Post by mainframetech
Until it is known exactly what damage was done by them during their
clandestine work, scientists are in the dark, whether they know it or not,
and their efforts are wasted.

Remarkable medical conclusion by a computer mainframe technician.

Post by mainframetech
Chris

[mainframetech]

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

JFK Skull Fracture Lines 6:57
http://youtu.be/yiKrR7BLFv0

Since much of the damage to the skull was done by Humes and Boswell
BEFORE the autopsy,

::: sigh :::

I didn't SEE anything! I also did NOT say they "BROKE INTO" the skull.
Edward Reed saw them sue a bone saw to cut into the skull in somewhat
usual way, but that wasn't all the damage that was done. Since I told you
that Edward Reed SAW them doing their clandestine work on the body, you
didn't go check out his testimony because you know just too much. If you
had checked his sworn testimony, you'd know how they got into the skull to
get out the brain to search for bullets.

Post by claviger
Normally the skull cap is removed with a saw. You say two Navy
pathologists broke into the skull cap to create a false wound. What kind
of medical tools were used to puncture and fracture the skull cap?

See above. You've made another mistake. They used scalpels and bone
saw.

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech
any guesswork later about the fractures and other wounds would be foolish.

Isn't it curious that all fractures that show up in the X-rays lead back
to a small puncture wound in back of the skull? How did the prosectors
manage to do that since you claim there was a large hole back there?
Where did they get the bone pieces to fake this X-ray?
HSCA Appendix Volume 7
Figure 20, Page 112
http://www.jfkpage.com/temple_wound/Xrays/HSCA_Vol7_p122_skull_xray.jpg

Sorry, I don't see fracturing leading only to the BOH from the various
bits of damage they did to it. Since it was damaged by 2 pathologists, we
won't know what made the fractures, or how.

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech
Until it is known exactly what damage was done by them during their
clandestine work, scientists are in the dark, whether they know it or not,
and their efforts are wasted.

Remarkable medical conclusion by a computer mainframe technician.

Does it help you any to know that I became Senior VP of Company
Operations in a public company? Now you know as much as you knew before
about the case.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by claviger

Post by mainframetech

Post by claviger

Post by claviger
50 years later, Beverly forensic pathologist examines JFK
Nov 21, 2013
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html

JFK Skull Fracture Lines 6:57
http://youtu.be/yiKrR7BLFv0

Since much of the damage to the skull was done by Humes and Boswell
BEFORE the autopsy,

Normally the skull cap is removed with a saw. You say two Navy
pathologists broke into the skull cap to create a false wound. What kind
of medical tools were used to puncture and fracture the skull cap?

Post by mainframetech
any guesswork later about the fractures and other wounds would be foolish.

Isn't it curious that all fractures that show up in the X-rays lead back
to a small puncture wound in back of the skull? How did the prosectors
manage to do that since you claim there was a large hole back there?
Where did they get the bone pieces to fake this X-ray?

That's silly.The skull was severely fractured by the massive explosion.
You can see that on the X-rays even before they started the autopsy.

Post by claviger
HSCA Appendix Volume 7
Figure 20, Page 112
http://www.jfkpage.com/temple_wound/Xrays/HSCA_Vol7_p122_skull_xray.jpg

Post by mainframetech
Until it is known exactly what damage was done by them during their
clandestine work, scientists are in the dark, whether they know it or not,
and their efforts are wasted.

Remarkable medical conclusion by a computer mainframe technician.

Post by mainframetech
Chris