Discussion:
Want to take a stab at WHY there was no frontal head shot EXIT wound?
(too old to reply)
Ed Cage
2003-09-01 03:41:58 UTC
Permalink
Dr. Cyril Wecht maintained for a while at least,
that the head wounds did not preclude a frontal
shooter..

HOWEVER Dr. Wecht was unable (as far as I know) to
ever explain why there was:

NO FRONTAL SHOT HEAD E*X*I*T WOUND!

Anyone want to take a stab at WHY there was no
frontal head shot EXIT wound?

Ed Cage aug311553
Robert Harris
2003-09-01 14:19:09 UTC
Permalink
On 31 Aug 2003 22:41:58 -0500, ***@earthlink.net (Ed Cage)
wrote:

>Dr. Cyril Wecht maintained for a while at least,
>that the head wounds did not preclude a frontal
>shooter..
>
>HOWEVER Dr. Wecht was unable (as far as I know) to
>ever explain why there was:
>
> NO FRONTAL SHOT HEAD E*X*I*T WOUND!


Sure - right after we resolve the question of why there is no Gulf of
Mexico.

A major portion of the upper rear of the head was blown out, Ed. THAT
of course, WAS the exit wound.

Only one man on this planet ever measured the dimensions and plotted
the locations of JFK's head wounds, Ed. That was Dr. Thornton Boswell.

He told the HSCA that the reason his drawing showed the large defect
to be 17 cm front-to-back, rather than the 13 that Humes claimed, was
that a 4 cm piece of skull, which was blown out of the back of the
head, was flown into Bethesda that night and put back in place before
Humes took his measurements.

Setting aside for the moment, our concerns about Humes's false
statement, let's look at where that 4 cm piece of skull was, Ed. You
can see it in this article at my website:

http://wave.prohosting.com/rh84/reply/reply.html

Whether it was part of the 17 cm defect or it was the 4 cm piece that
Boswell illustrated, just below that point, we know that the damage
easily overlapped the cowlick region, where the HSCA docs found both a
hole and a small bullet fragment,, right Ed?

And since that piece was blown out, along with blood and tissue, that
sailed more than 20 feet, across the road, we also know that before
the head was reconstructed there had to have been a wide open hold
back there, which was indeed, the "EXIT WOUND".

Of course, that's exactly what most of the doctors and other people
who saw the back of Kennedy's head, said, isn't it Ed?






Robert Harris



>
>Anyone want to take a stab at WHY there was no
>frontal head shot EXIT wound?
>
>Ed Cage aug311553
>
om
2003-09-01 18:16:15 UTC
Permalink
Yeah that's an easy one...I'll take a "stab" at it....there is no evident
exit or entry wound because the bullet(s) blew the whole top of his head
off, so it would be rather hard to define an entry or exit wound in any
situation like that, would it not?

"Robert Harris" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:***@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> On 31 Aug 2003 22:41:58 -0500, ***@earthlink.net (Ed Cage)
> wrote:
>
> >Dr. Cyril Wecht maintained for a while at least,
> >that the head wounds did not preclude a frontal
> >shooter..
> >
> >HOWEVER Dr. Wecht was unable (as far as I know) to
> >ever explain why there was:
> >
> > NO FRONTAL SHOT HEAD E*X*I*T WOUND!
>
>
> Sure - right after we resolve the question of why there is no Gulf of
> Mexico.
>
> A major portion of the upper rear of the head was blown out, Ed. THAT
> of course, WAS the exit wound.
>
> Only one man on this planet ever measured the dimensions and plotted
> the locations of JFK's head wounds, Ed. That was Dr. Thornton Boswell.
>
> He told the HSCA that the reason his drawing showed the large defect
> to be 17 cm front-to-back, rather than the 13 that Humes claimed, was
> that a 4 cm piece of skull, which was blown out of the back of the
> head, was flown into Bethesda that night and put back in place before
> Humes took his measurements.
>
> Setting aside for the moment, our concerns about Humes's false
> statement, let's look at where that 4 cm piece of skull was, Ed. You
> can see it in this article at my website:
>
> http://wave.prohosting.com/rh84/reply/reply.html
>
> Whether it was part of the 17 cm defect or it was the 4 cm piece that
> Boswell illustrated, just below that point, we know that the damage
> easily overlapped the cowlick region, where the HSCA docs found both a
> hole and a small bullet fragment,, right Ed?
>
> And since that piece was blown out, along with blood and tissue, that
> sailed more than 20 feet, across the road, we also know that before
> the head was reconstructed there had to have been a wide open hold
> back there, which was indeed, the "EXIT WOUND".
>
> Of course, that's exactly what most of the doctors and other people
> who saw the back of Kennedy's head, said, isn't it Ed?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
>
>
> >
> >Anyone want to take a stab at WHY there was no
> >frontal head shot EXIT wound?
> >
> >Ed Cage aug311553
> >
>
>
Ed Cage
2003-09-02 01:21:17 UTC
Permalink
Here is one I did not want to see buried..
I DO NOT AGREE w it at all or the flawed, imo,
point it attempts to make..
HOWEVER my 10 Gallon TX hat is off to
"texasstyle" bc of some S*U*P*E*R*B graphics
and some real dedication..

I see that occasionally in here w Dr Z,
Harris, Andrew, Dot John, on and on..
(I gotta be careful w this "list/rating" thing
of mine..) Last time I did this 24 hrs ago, I
PO'd an important & respected poster/moderator
U=N=I=N=T=E=N=T=I=O=N=A=L=L=Y.
Anyway, I left off a ton of great sites but
my point is this:
This guy deserves credit for
some extraordinary dedication to
graphics/presentation!!
(I owned a large graphics/art firm for many yrs.)

Try this link and you'll see what I mean..

http://home.pacbell.net/starke49/index.html

Ed Sep11600
Dr Z, cast yer peepers on this one..



"texasstyle" <***@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<48A4b.9800$***@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>...
> Try this link and you may see why.
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/starke49/index.html



"om" <***@minded.com> wrote in message news:<14J4b.27110$***@twister.austin.rr.com>...
> Yeah that's an easy one...I'll take a "stab" at it....there is no evident
> exit or entry wound because the bullet(s) blew the whole top of his head
> off, so it would be rather hard to define an entry or exit wound in any
> situation like that, would it not?
>
> "Robert Harris" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:***@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> > On 31 Aug 2003 22:41:58 -0500, ***@earthlink.net (Ed Cage)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Dr. Cyril Wecht maintained for a while at least,
> > >that the head wounds did not preclude a frontal
> > >shooter..
> > >
> > >HOWEVER Dr. Wecht was unable (as far as I know) to
> > >ever explain why there was:
> > >
> > > NO FRONTAL SHOT HEAD E*X*I*T WOUND!
> >
> >
> > Sure - right after we resolve the question of why there is no Gulf of
> > Mexico.
> >
> > A major portion of the upper rear of the head was blown out, Ed. THAT
> > of course, WAS the exit wound.
> >
> > Only one man on this planet ever measured the dimensions and plotted
> > the locations of JFK's head wounds, Ed. That was Dr. Thornton Boswell.
> >
> > He told the HSCA that the reason his drawing showed the large defect
> > to be 17 cm front-to-back, rather than the 13 that Humes claimed, was
> > that a 4 cm piece of skull, which was blown out of the back of the
> > head, was flown into Bethesda that night and put back in place before
> > Humes took his measurements.
> >
> > Setting aside for the moment, our concerns about Humes's false
> > statement, let's look at where that 4 cm piece of skull was, Ed. You
> > can see it in this article at my website:
> >
> > http://wave.prohosting.com/rh84/reply/reply.html
> >
> > Whether it was part of the 17 cm defect or it was the 4 cm piece that
> > Boswell illustrated, just below that point, we know that the damage
> > easily overlapped the cowlick region, where the HSCA docs found both a
> > hole and a small bullet fragment,, right Ed?
> >
> > And since that piece was blown out, along with blood and tissue, that
> > sailed more than 20 feet, across the road, we also know that before
> > the head was reconstructed there had to have been a wide open hold
> > back there, which was indeed, the "EXIT WOUND".
> >
> > Of course, that's exactly what most of the doctors and other people
> > who saw the back of Kennedy's head, said, isn't it Ed?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Robert Harris
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >Anyone want to take a stab at WHY there was no
> > >frontal head shot EXIT wound?
> > >
> > >Ed Cage aug311553
> > >
> >
> >
Ed Cage
2003-09-04 02:49:37 UTC
Permalink
Bob.. Send him an email w your summary post.
He is OPENLY SOLICITING input on his web site..
If he posted here, perhaps texasstyle will
respond in the NG to your post Bob, which I
happen to agree with btw..

Ed Sep31734




***@yahoo.com (Robert Harris) wrote in message news:<reharris1-***@192.168.0.101>...
> In article <***@posting.google.com>,
> ***@earthlink.net (Ed Cage) wrote:
>
> > Here is one I did not want to see buried..
> > I DO NOT AGREE w it at all or the flawed, imo,
> > point it attempts to make..
> > HOWEVER my 10 Gallon TX hat is off to
> > "texasstyle" bc of some S*U*P*E*R*B graphics
> > and some real dedication..
> >
> > I see that occasionally in here w Dr Z,
> > Harris, Andrew, Dot John, on and on..
> > (I gotta be careful w this "list/rating" thing
> > of mine..) Last time I did this 24 hrs ago, I
> > PO'd an important & respected poster/moderator
> > U=N=I=N=T=E=N=T=I=O=N=A=L=L=Y.
> > Anyway, I left off a ton of great sites but
> > my point is this:
> > This guy deserves credit for
> > some extraordinary dedication to
> > graphics/presentation!!
> > (I owned a large graphics/art firm for many yrs.)
> >
> > Try this link and you'll see what I mean..
> >
> > http://home.pacbell.net/starke49/index.html
> >
> > Ed Sep11600
> > Dr Z, cast yer peepers on this one..
> >
> >
> >
> > "texasstyle" <***@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:<48A4b.9800$***@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>...
> > > Try this link and you may see why.
> > >
> > > http://home.pacbell.net/starke49/index.html
>
> ROFLMAO!!
>
> That's about as ridiculous as things get in this case, and that's saying a
> lot. He has obviously, darkened some of the frames so that we cannot see
> the divisions between Jackie's collar and the back of Kennedy's head. Look
> at some unaltered images and you will see what I mean.
>
> http://wave.prohosting.com/rh84/pix/backofhead.jpg
>
> http://wave.prohosting.com/rh84/pix/backhead.jpg
>
> All we are seeing is the same thing that the doctors and nurses SAID they
> saw, Ed. It matches perfectly with the damage in the Xrays and with Dr.
> Boswell's drawing.
>
> http://wave.prohosting.com/rh84/4chad.jpg
>
> You people are just gonna have to live with it:-)
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > "om" <***@minded.com> wrote in message
> news:<14J4b.27110$***@twister.austin.rr.com>...
> > > Yeah that's an easy one...I'll take a "stab" at it....there is no evident
> > > exit or entry wound because the bullet(s) blew the whole top of his head
> > > off, so it would be rather hard to define an entry or exit wound in any
> > > situation like that, would it not?
> > >
> > > "Robert Harris" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:***@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> > > > On 31 Aug 2003 22:41:58 -0500, ***@earthlink.net (Ed Cage)
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Dr. Cyril Wecht maintained for a while at least,
> > > > >that the head wounds did not preclude a frontal
> > > > >shooter..
> > > > >
> > > > >HOWEVER Dr. Wecht was unable (as far as I know) to
> > > > >ever explain why there was:
> > > > >
> > > > > NO FRONTAL SHOT HEAD E*X*I*T WOUND!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sure - right after we resolve the question of why there is no Gulf of
> > > > Mexico.
> > > >
> > > > A major portion of the upper rear of the head was blown out, Ed. THAT
> > > > of course, WAS the exit wound.
> > > >
> > > > Only one man on this planet ever measured the dimensions and plotted
> > > > the locations of JFK's head wounds, Ed. That was Dr. Thornton Boswell.
> > > >
> > > > He told the HSCA that the reason his drawing showed the large defect
> > > > to be 17 cm front-to-back, rather than the 13 that Humes claimed, was
> > > > that a 4 cm piece of skull, which was blown out of the back of the
> > > > head, was flown into Bethesda that night and put back in place before
> > > > Humes took his measurements.
> > > >
> > > > Setting aside for the moment, our concerns about Humes's false
> > > > statement, let's look at where that 4 cm piece of skull was, Ed. You
> > > > can see it in this article at my website:
> > > >
> > > > http://wave.prohosting.com/rh84/reply/reply.html
> > > >
> > > > Whether it was part of the 17 cm defect or it was the 4 cm piece that
> > > > Boswell illustrated, just below that point, we know that the damage
> > > > easily overlapped the cowlick region, where the HSCA docs found both a
> > > > hole and a small bullet fragment,, right Ed?
> > > >
> > > > And since that piece was blown out, along with blood and tissue, that
> > > > sailed more than 20 feet, across the road, we also know that before
> > > > the head was reconstructed there had to have been a wide open hold
> > > > back there, which was indeed, the "EXIT WOUND".
> > > >
> > > > Of course, that's exactly what most of the doctors and other people
> > > > who saw the back of Kennedy's head, said, isn't it Ed?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Robert Harris
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Anyone want to take a stab at WHY there was no
> > > > >frontal head shot EXIT wound?
> > > > >
> > > > >Ed Cage aug311553
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
Ken West
2003-09-01 18:16:41 UTC
Permalink
Ed Cage wrote:
> Dr. Cyril Wecht maintained for a while at least,
> that the head wounds did not preclude a frontal
> shooter..
>
> HOWEVER Dr. Wecht was unable (as far as I know) to
> ever explain why there was:
>
> NO FRONTAL SHOT HEAD E*X*I*T WOUND!
>
> Anyone want to take a stab at WHY there was no
> frontal head shot EXIT wound?
>
> Ed Cage aug311553
>
Would a frontal shot create, on exit,
"a large wound in his head, in the right rear area?"
as reported by Dr. Perry on the day of the event.

Ed, is it a F=A=C=T that there was no exit wound, 22Nov1963?

Ken West
Paul Seaton
2003-09-01 19:44:47 UTC
Permalink
"Ken West" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@hotmail.com...
> Ed Cage wrote:
> > Dr. Cyril Wecht maintained for a while at least,
> > that the head wounds did not preclude a frontal
> > shooter..
> >
> > HOWEVER Dr. Wecht was unable (as far as I know) to
> > ever explain why there was:
> >
> > NO FRONTAL SHOT HEAD E*X*I*T WOUND!
> >
> > Anyone want to take a stab at WHY there was no
> > frontal head shot EXIT wound?
> >
> > Ed Cage aug311553
> >
> Would a frontal shot create, on exit,
> "a large wound in his head, in the right rear area?"
> as reported by Dr. Perry on the day of the event.

The whole right side of his skull opened up.
Bone fragments from the crown to the hairline were blown clean away.
The right rear was hanging loose.
Both frontal AND rearward shots COULD create an apparent massive hole in the
rear of the head, but in this case only a shot from the rear DID create such
a wound.
It also created a massive hole in the FRONT of his head.

Paul Seaton


>
> Ed, is it a F=A=C=T that there was no exit wound, 22Nov1963?
>
> Ken West
>
>
Paul Seaton
2003-09-02 01:23:48 UTC
Permalink
"Ken West" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@hotmail.com...
> Paul Seaton wrote:
> > "Ken West" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:***@hotmail.com...
> >
> >>Ed Cage wrote:
> >>
> . . .snip . . .
>
> >>>
> >>>Anyone want to take a stab at WHY there was no
> >>>frontal head shot EXIT wound?
> >>>
> >>>Ed Cage aug311553
> >>>
> >>
> >>Would a frontal shot create, on exit,
> >>"a large wound in his head, in the right rear area?"
> >>as reported by Dr. Perry on the day of the event.
> >
> >
> > The whole right side of his skull opened up.
> > Bone fragments from the crown to the hairline were blown clean away.
> > The right rear was hanging loose.
> > Both frontal AND rearward shots COULD create an apparent massive hole in
the
> > rear of the head, but in this case only a shot from the rear DID create
such
> > a wound.
>
> I understand and agree with "COULD".
> I'm less sure about "DID". This is based on . . . ?

The x-rays.


>
> > It also created a massive hole in the FRONT of his head.
>
> Which somehow, the Parkland medics forgot to mention.


Drs. Salyer, Geisecke ( confusing left with right) did *not* forget to
mention it. You can suppose that the right front wound did not exist at
Parkland (in which case you have to show how the Z film was faked & how
when & where JFK's right front skull was knocked to bits - & why the docs
above hallucinated a wound there) or you can suppose that Jackie had
jammed up the gaping right front wound with the brains falling out of it
en route to Parkland, where it was largely (but not entirely) unnoticed
because the whole area was covered in scalp & plastered over with half
dried blood.

I think the latter is the more reasonable alternative, but if you want to
defend the former, I'm all ears.

Paul Seaton
Ken West
2003-09-02 05:01:42 UTC
Permalink
Paul Seaton wrote:
> "Ken West" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:***@hotmail.com...
>
>>Paul Seaton wrote:
>>
>>>"Ken West" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:***@hotmail.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ed Cage wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>. . .snip . . .
>>
>>
>>>>>Anyone want to take a stab at WHY there was no
>>>>>frontal head shot EXIT wound?
>>>>>
>>>>>Ed Cage aug311553
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Would a frontal shot create, on exit,
>>>>"a large wound in his head, in the right rear area?"
>>>>as reported by Dr. Perry on the day of the event.
>>>
>>>
>>>The whole right side of his skull opened up.
>>>Bone fragments from the crown to the hairline were blown clean away.
>>>The right rear was hanging loose.
. . . snip . . .
>>>It also created a massive hole in the FRONT of his head.
>>
>>Which somehow, the Parkland medics forgot to mention.
>
>
>
> Drs. Salyer, Geisecke ( confusing left with right) did *not* forget to > mention it.

OK, two medics out of about 20 who thought that the
front/temporal was worth mentioning. I've clipped their WC
testimony, below. I find it less than convincing. I certainly
wouldn't want a doctor operating on me if he didn't know my left
from my right.

> You can suppose that the right front wound did not exist at
> Parkland (in which case you have to show how the Z film was faked

Don't know if/how it was faked; but certainly the Parkland medics
were closer.

>&how& when & where JFK's right front skull was knocked to bits
- & why the docs
> above hallucinated a wound there)

There's a whole book on that.

> or you can suppose that Jackie had
> jammed up the gaping right front wound with the brains falling out of it
> en route to Parkland, where it was largely (but not entirely) unnoticed
> because the whole area was covered in scalp & plastered over with half
> dried blood.

I guess its known that she tried to stem the flow, but is there a
reference to where on the skull she was doing this?

>
> I think the latter is the more reasonable alternative, but if you want to
> defend the former, I'm all ears.

There is much I don't know or understand, for sure; but it's
hard to discount the initial accounts of the people who were
there, close up to the fresh evidence, first -- ie., the Parkland
medics.

>
> Paul Seaton

Doc's testimony, below . . .

regards,
Ken West

Dr. SALYER.
. . .there were a lot of doctors standing around, and I didn't
really get to observe the nature of the wound in the throat.
. . .I came in on the left side of him and noticed that his
major wound seemed to be in his right temporal area, at least
from the point of view that I could see him, and other than
that--nothing other than he did have a gaping scalp wound--
cranial wound.


Dr. GIESECKE. It seemed that from the vertex to the left ear, and
from the browline to the occiput on the left-hand side of the
head the cranium was entirely missing.
Mr. SPECTER. Was that the left-hand side of the head, or the
right-hand side of the head ?
Dr. GIESECKE. I would say the left, but this is just my
memory of it.
Mr. SPECTER. That's your recollection ?
Dr. GIESECKE. Right, like I say, I was there a very short
time really.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any other wound or bullet hole
below the large area of missing skull ?
Dr. GIESECKE. No; when I arrived the tracheotomy was in
progress at that time and so I observed no other wound except the
one on the cranium.
Mr. SPECTER. On the cranium itself, did you observe another
bullet hole below the portion of missing skull ?
Dr. GIESECKE. No, sir; this was found later by Dr. Clark--I
didn't see this.
Mr. SPECTER. What makes you say that that hole was found
later by Dr. Clark?
Dr. GIESECKE. Well, this is hearsay--I wasn't there when
they found it and I didn't notice it.
Mr. SPECTER. Well, Dr. Clark didn't observe that hole.
Dr. GIESECKE. Oh, he didn't--I'm sorry.
Mr. SPECTER. From whom did you hear that the hole had been
observed, if you recollect?
Dr. GIESECKE-. Oh--I must be confused. We talked to so many
people about these things--I don't remember.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, with respect to the condition of the
President's neck, what was its status at the time you first
observed it?
Dr. GIESECKE. Well, like I say, they were performing the
tracheotomy, and I personally saw no wound in the neck other than
the tracheotomy wound. As soon as the tracheotomy was completed,
we removed the endotracheal tube and hooked the anesthesia
machine to the tracheotomy tube and efforts were made then to put
in a chest tube, an anterior chest tube.
Mr. SPECTER. How long were you with President Kennedy
altogether ?
Dr. GIESECKE. Approximately 5 minutes.
Paul Seaton
2003-09-02 14:41:14 UTC
Permalink
"Ken West" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@hotmail.com...
> Paul Seaton wrote:
> > "Ken West" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:***@hotmail.com...
> >
> >>Paul Seaton wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Ken West" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:***@hotmail.com...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Ed Cage wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>. . .snip . . .
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>Anyone want to take a stab at WHY there was no
> >>>>>frontal head shot EXIT wound?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Ed Cage aug311553
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Would a frontal shot create, on exit,
> >>>>"a large wound in his head, in the right rear area?"
> >>>>as reported by Dr. Perry on the day of the event.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The whole right side of his skull opened up.
> >>>Bone fragments from the crown to the hairline were blown clean away.
> >>>The right rear was hanging loose.
> . . . snip . . .
> >>>It also created a massive hole in the FRONT of his head.
> >>
> >>Which somehow, the Parkland medics forgot to mention.
> >
> >
> >
> > Drs. Salyer, Geisecke ( confusing left with right) did *not* forget to
> mention it.
>
> OK, two medics out of about 20 who thought that the
> front/temporal was worth mentioning. I've clipped their WC
> testimony, below. I find it less than convincing. I certainly
> wouldn't want a doctor operating on me if he didn't know my left
> from my right.
>
> > You can suppose that the right front wound did not exist at
> > Parkland (in which case you have to show how the Z film was faked
>
> Don't know if/how it was faked; but certainly the Parkland medics
> were closer.

And you think there was actually no right front wound at Parkland?
So, given that there is an obvious huge right front wound in the Z film, you
must neccessarily have to have the Z film altered very extensively
somewhere, some time.


>
> >&how& when & where JFK's right front skull was knocked to bits
> - & why the docs
> > above hallucinated a wound there)
>
> There's a whole book on that.

LIfton has no explanation for Salyer & Geisecke.
If you think that some clandestine post mortem skull alteration 'event' is
intrinsically more probable than some doctors not seeing the whole forwards
extent of the headwound ( despite them not reflecting back the scalp to get
a good look at it), then I have to disagree with your method of assigning
probabilities.


>
> > or you can suppose that Jackie had
> > jammed up the gaping right front wound with the brains falling out of it
> > en route to Parkland, where it was largely (but not entirely) unnoticed
> > because the whole area was covered in scalp & plastered over with half
> > dried blood.
>
> I guess its known that she tried to stem the flow, but is there a
> reference to where on the skull she was doing this?

Yeah, there is, & if Barb is reading this she might have the reference.
Jackie talks about trying to hold the top of his skull together.


>
> >
> > I think the latter is the more reasonable alternative, but if you want
to
> > defend the former, I'm all ears.
>
> There is much I don't know or understand, for sure; but it's
> hard to discount the initial accounts of the people who were
> there, close up to the fresh evidence, first -- ie., the Parkland
> medics.

But you discount two of them, close up to the fresh evidence.
What made Salyer believe there was a a major wound in the right temporal
area?
He was pre-cogniting a wound that was *going to be put there a few hours
later* ???

"from the browline to the occiput on the left-hand side of the head the
cranium was entirely missing."..
is pretty accurate if we put 'right' for 'left' & put 'loose or entirely
missing' for 'entirely missing' .
Was Dr G also pre-cogniting a wound that was *going to be put there a few
hours later* ???

These guys never folded the scalp back to reveal the whole mess. ( Jackie
was standing right there ).
The guys at the autopsy did, and they found skull loose from about the eop
forward on the right, and actually missing, on the top/ right , from the
crown forward.

It is the variable appearance of that floppy mass of shattered bone & skull
over his skull that Lifton rather too eagerly mistook for ( shock horror..)
BODY ALTERATION.

I mean... come on... BODY ALTERATION ?????
( And this also implies Z film alteration..)

Paul Seaton.





>
> >
> > Paul Seaton
>
> Doc's testimony, below . . .
>
> regards,
> Ken West
>
> Dr. SALYER.
> . . .there were a lot of doctors standing around, and I didn't
> really get to observe the nature of the wound in the throat.
> . . .I came in on the left side of him and noticed that his
> major wound seemed to be in his right temporal area, at least
> from the point of view that I could see him, and other than
> that--nothing other than he did have a gaping scalp wound--
> cranial wound.
>
>
> Dr. GIESECKE. It seemed that from the vertex to the left ear, and
> from the browline to the occiput on the left-hand side of the
> head the cranium was entirely missing.
> Mr. SPECTER. Was that the left-hand side of the head, or the
> right-hand side of the head ?
> Dr. GIESECKE. I would say the left, but this is just my
> memory of it.
> Mr. SPECTER. That's your recollection ?
> Dr. GIESECKE. Right, like I say, I was there a very short
> time really.
> Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any other wound or bullet hole
> below the large area of missing skull ?
> Dr. GIESECKE. No; when I arrived the tracheotomy was in
> progress at that time and so I observed no other wound except the
> one on the cranium.
> Mr. SPECTER. On the cranium itself, did you observe another
> bullet hole below the portion of missing skull ?
> Dr. GIESECKE. No, sir; this was found later by Dr. Clark--I
> didn't see this.
> Mr. SPECTER. What makes you say that that hole was found
> later by Dr. Clark?
> Dr. GIESECKE. Well, this is hearsay--I wasn't there when
> they found it and I didn't notice it.
> Mr. SPECTER. Well, Dr. Clark didn't observe that hole.
> Dr. GIESECKE. Oh, he didn't--I'm sorry.
> Mr. SPECTER. From whom did you hear that the hole had been
> observed, if you recollect?
> Dr. GIESECKE-. Oh--I must be confused. We talked to so many
> people about these things--I don't remember.
> Mr. SPECTER. Now, with respect to the condition of the
> President's neck, what was its status at the time you first
> observed it?
> Dr. GIESECKE. Well, like I say, they were performing the
> tracheotomy, and I personally saw no wound in the neck other than
> the tracheotomy wound. As soon as the tracheotomy was completed,
> we removed the endotracheal tube and hooked the anesthesia
> machine to the tracheotomy tube and efforts were made then to put
> in a chest tube, an anterior chest tube.
> Mr. SPECTER. How long were you with President Kennedy
> altogether ?
> Dr. GIESECKE. Approximately 5 minutes.
>
>
Ken West
2003-09-03 00:20:44 UTC
Permalink
Paul Seaton wrote:
> "Ken West" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:***@hotmail.com...
>
>>Paul Seaton wrote:
>>
>>>"Ken West" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:***@hotmail.com...
>>>
>>>>Paul Seaton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Ken West" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:***@hotmail.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ed Cage wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>. . .snip . . .
>>>>>>>Anyone want to take a stab at WHY there was no
>>>>>>>frontal head shot EXIT wound?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ed Cage aug311553
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Would a frontal shot create, on exit,
>>>>>>"a large wound in his head, in the right rear area?"
>>>>>>as reported by Dr. Perry on the day of the event.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The whole right side of his skull opened up.
>>>>>Bone fragments from the crown to the hairline were blown clean away.
>>>>>The right rear was hanging loose.
>>>>
>>. . . snip . . .
>>
>>>>>It also created a massive hole in the FRONT of his head.
>>>>
>>>>Which somehow, the Parkland medics forgot to mention.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Drs. Salyer, Geisecke ( confusing left with right) did *not* forget to
>>>mention it.
>>
>>OK, two medics out of about 20 who thought that the
>>front/temporal was worth mentioning. I've clipped their WC
>>testimony, below. I find it less than convincing. I certainly
>>wouldn't want a doctor operating on me if he didn't know my left
>>from my right.
>>
>>
>>>You can suppose that the right front wound did not exist at
>>>Parkland (in which case you have to show how the Z film was faked
>>
>>Don't know if/how it was faked; but certainly the Parkland medics
>>were closer.
>
>
> And you think there was actually no right front wound at Parkland?
> So, given that there is an obvious huge right front wound in the Z film, you
> must neccessarily have to have the Z film altered very extensively
> somewhere, some time.

That seems unlikely, doesn't it. I'm not at the point of being
able to relate the medical observations to the film.

>
>
>
>> >&how& when & where JFK's right front skull was knocked to bits
>>- & why the docs
>>
>>>above hallucinated a wound there)
>>
>>There's a whole book on that.
>
>
> LIfton has no explanation for Salyer & Geisecke.
Reading their accounts (below) and comparing them to others', I
can only assume that what they think they saw was heavily
influenced by the "fog of war".

> If you think that some clandestine post mortem skull alteration 'event' is
> intrinsically more probable than some doctors not seeing the whole forwards
> extent of the headwound ( despite them not reflecting back the scalp to get
> a good look at it), then I have to disagree with your method of assigning
> probabilities.

Corpse alteration is very hard to believe, for sure, and I have
not bought into that theory.
But its also hard to belive that those who were most in
attendance at Parkland could miss such an obvious frontal wound.
I need to come to my own terms with the discrepancy

On the other hand, the sense of this thread is that, regardless
of a frontal injury, almost ALL the Parkland medics saw a
significant *rear* wound which appeared to them to be an exit
wound, consistent with what Ed is asking: a "frontal head shot
exit".
Even Salyer says:

>> his major wound seemed to be in his right temporal area, at
>> least from the point of view that I could see him, and other
>> than that --nothing other than he did have a gaping scalp
>> wound-- cranial wound.

What did he mean by "nothing other than . . ." ? He seems to be
talking about another wound.

>
>
>
>>>or you can suppose that Jackie had
>>>jammed up the gaping right front wound with the brains falling out of it
>>>en route to Parkland, where it was largely (but not entirely) unnoticed
>>>because the whole area was covered in scalp & plastered over with half
>>>dried blood.
>>
>>I guess its known that she tried to stem the flow, but is there a
>>reference to where on the skull she was doing this?
>
>
> Yeah, there is, & if Barb is reading this she might have the reference.
> Jackie talks about trying to hold the top of his skull together.
>
>
>
>>>I think the latter is the more reasonable alternative, but if you want
> todefend the former, I'm all ears.
>>
>>There is much I don't know or understand, for sure; but it's
>>hard to discount the initial accounts of the people who were
>>there, close up to the fresh evidence, first -- ie., the Parkland
>>medics.
>
>
> But you discount two of them, close up to the fresh evidence.
> What made Salyer believe there was a a major wound in the right temporal
> area?
> He was pre-cogniting a wound that was *going to be put there a few hours
> later* ???
>
> "from the browline to the occiput on the left-hand side of the head the
> cranium was entirely missing."..
> is pretty accurate if we put 'right' for 'left' & put 'loose or entirely
> missing' for 'entirely missing' .
> Was Dr G also pre-cogniting a wound that was *going to be put there a few
> hours later* ???
>
> These guys never folded the scalp back to reveal the whole mess. ( Jackie
> was standing right there ).
> The guys at the autopsy did, and they found skull loose from about the eop
> forward on the right, and actually missing, on the top/ right , from the
> crown forward.
>
> It is the variable appearance of that floppy mass of shattered bone & skull
> over his skull that Lifton rather too eagerly mistook for ( shock horror..)
> BODY ALTERATION.
>
> I mean... come on... BODY ALTERATION ?????
> ( And this also implies Z film alteration..)
>
> Paul Seaton.

Salyer and Geisecke (Giesecke?) (left? right?) may be more
accurate in their witness than were the other 19 medics, although
their testimony doesn't suggest it.

I don't espouse the body alteration theory.
Therefore I have facts before me which don't jibe.
Your input is helpful.
I still need to read the ARRB chapter on this, and Livingstone,
which others have suggested.

Thanks Paul.

regards,
Ken West
Ed Cage
2003-09-02 15:11:54 UTC
Permalink
Ken I may be criticized for repeating this but
the PH Drs were concerned w urgent life-saving
methods, Their agenda was 180 different from
the more accurate autopsy acct..
ALSO:
1) There were pictures & X-rays <--IMPORTANT &
NOT FAKED.
2) Really only 1 PH Dr had the BOH wound acct..
McClelland @ PH.. The other Drs harshly discredited
and dismissed his acct..
3) The Z film was NOT FAKED EITHER.

Ed Sep20518





Ken West <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<***@hotmail.com>...
> Paul Seaton wrote:
> > "Ken West" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:***@hotmail.com...
> >
> >>Paul Seaton wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Ken West" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:***@hotmail.com...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Ed Cage wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>. . .snip . . .
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>Anyone want to take a stab at WHY there was no
> >>>>>frontal head shot EXIT wound?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Ed Cage aug311553
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Would a frontal shot create, on exit,
> >>>>"a large wound in his head, in the right rear area?"
> >>>>as reported by Dr. Perry on the day of the event.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The whole right side of his skull opened up.
> >>>Bone fragments from the crown to the hairline were blown clean away.
> >>>The right rear was hanging loose.
> . . . snip . . .
> >>>It also created a massive hole in the FRONT of his head.
> >>
> >>Which somehow, the Parkland medics forgot to mention.
> >
> >
> >
> > Drs. Salyer, Geisecke ( confusing left with right) did *not* forget to > mention it.
>
> OK, two medics out of about 20 who thought that the
> front/temporal was worth mentioning. I've clipped their WC
> testimony, below. I find it less than convincing. I certainly
> wouldn't want a doctor operating on me if he didn't know my left
> from my right.
>
> > You can suppose that the right front wound did not exist at
> > Parkland (in which case you have to show how the Z film was faked
>
> Don't know if/how it was faked; but certainly the Parkland medics
> were closer.
>
> >&how& when & where JFK's right front skull was knocked to bits
> - & why the docs
> > above hallucinated a wound there)
>
> There's a whole book on that.
>
> > or you can suppose that Jackie had
> > jammed up the gaping right front wound with the brains falling out of it
> > en route to Parkland, where it was largely (but not entirely) unnoticed
> > because the whole area was covered in scalp & plastered over with half
> > dried blood.
>
> I guess its known that she tried to stem the flow, but is there a
> reference to where on the skull she was doing this?
>
> >
> > I think the latter is the more reasonable alternative, but if you want to
> > defend the former, I'm all ears.
>
> There is much I don't know or understand, for sure; but it's
> hard to discount the initial accounts of the people who were
> there, close up to the fresh evidence, first -- ie., the Parkland
> medics.
>
> >
> > Paul Seaton
>
> Doc's testimony, below . . .
>
> regards,
> Ken West
>
> Dr. SALYER.
> . . .there were a lot of doctors standing around, and I didn't
> really get to observe the nature of the wound in the throat.
> . . .I came in on the left side of him and noticed that his
> major wound seemed to be in his right temporal area, at least
> from the point of view that I could see him, and other than
> that--nothing other than he did have a gaping scalp wound--
> cranial wound.
>
>
> Dr. GIESECKE. It seemed that from the vertex to the left ear, and
> from the browline to the occiput on the left-hand side of the
> head the cranium was entirely missing.
> Mr. SPECTER. Was that the left-hand side of the head, or the
> right-hand side of the head ?
> Dr. GIESECKE. I would say the left, but this is just my
> memory of it.
> Mr. SPECTER. That's your recollection ?
> Dr. GIESECKE. Right, like I say, I was there a very short
> time really.
> Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any other wound or bullet hole
> below the large area of missing skull ?
> Dr. GIESECKE. No; when I arrived the tracheotomy was in
> progress at that time and so I observed no other wound except the
> one on the cranium.
> Mr. SPECTER. On the cranium itself, did you observe another
> bullet hole below the portion of missing skull ?
> Dr. GIESECKE. No, sir; this was found later by Dr. Clark--I
> didn't see this.
> Mr. SPECTER. What makes you say that that hole was found
> later by Dr. Clark?
> Dr. GIESECKE. Well, this is hearsay--I wasn't there when
> they found it and I didn't notice it.
> Mr. SPECTER. Well, Dr. Clark didn't observe that hole.
> Dr. GIESECKE. Oh, he didn't--I'm sorry.
> Mr. SPECTER. From whom did you hear that the hole had been
> observed, if you recollect?
> Dr. GIESECKE-. Oh--I must be confused. We talked to so many
> people about these things--I don't remember.
> Mr. SPECTER. Now, with respect to the condition of the
> President's neck, what was its status at the time you first
> observed it?
> Dr. GIESECKE. Well, like I say, they were performing the
> tracheotomy, and I personally saw no wound in the neck other than
> the tracheotomy wound. As soon as the tracheotomy was completed,
> we removed the endotracheal tube and hooked the anesthesia
> machine to the tracheotomy tube and efforts were made then to put
> in a chest tube, an anterior chest tube.
> Mr. SPECTER. How long were you with President Kennedy
> altogether ?
> Dr. GIESECKE. Approximately 5 minutes.
Ed Cage
2003-09-03 13:12:20 UTC
Permalink
This could be our problem area Ken.. I know
you require more than a book just S*A*Y*I*N*G
something.. You are clearly the type who
would not be satisfied w a statement, followed
by absolutely no source or reasoning or
justification for that statement..
Am I right?
If so, did the
"table showing only 2 of 21 medics seeing a front
wound -- the others all indicating a rear wound"
statement/position have a SOURCE?

(Ken this above Q from me to you may tend to
"put you on the spot.") Certainly that is not my
objective at all.. I just wish to illustrate that
you were very likely not given a SOURCE for the
above statement/position you read.. I=F THAT'S SO
it is not going to be productive for you to so
readily consider unsubstantiated statements that
you read, then require a MUCH HIGHER,.. DIFFERENT
standard of verification for positions that
contradict what you read.

Respectfully, Ed Sep22233



>Ken West <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<***@hotmail.com>...
> Ed Cage wrote:
> > Ken I may be criticized for repeating this but
> > the PH Drs were concerned w urgent life-saving
> > methods, Their agenda was 180 different from
> > the more accurate autopsy acct..
> > ALSO:
> > 1) There were pictures & X-rays <--IMPORTANT &
> > NOT FAKED.
> Important for sure, but so different from Parkland that something
> needs a better explanation.
>
> > 2) Really only 1 PH Dr had the BOH wound acct..
> I guess we're reading different books. My sources so far are BE
> and Murder in Dealey Plaza. I know your thoughts on the former,
> and can guess your thoughts on the latter. MiDP presents a table
> showing only 2 of 21 medics seeing a front wound -- the others
> all indicating a rear wound, and shows pictures of many of them
> holding their right hand to the back of the head as they testify.
> If this F=A=C=T is bogus, Ed, please let me know (and don't waste
> time trashing the book, just tell me why it is wrong).
>
> > McClelland @ PH.. The other Drs harshly discredited
> > and dismissed his acct..
> Ed, please help me -- where can I find these dismissals? ie. what
> is your source?
>
> > 3) The Z film was NOT FAKED EITHER.
> I'm not there yet. No opinion.
>
> >
> > Ed Sep20518
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Ken West <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<***@hotmail.com>...
> >
> >>Paul Seaton wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Ken West" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:***@hotmail.com...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Paul Seaton wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Ken West" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:***@hotmail.com...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Ed Cage wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>. . .snip . . .
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>Anyone want to take a stab at WHY there was no
> >>>>>>>frontal head shot EXIT wound?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Ed Cage aug311553
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Would a frontal shot create, on exit,
> >>>>>>"a large wound in his head, in the right rear area?"
> >>>>>>as reported by Dr. Perry on the day of the event.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The whole right side of his skull opened up.
> >>>>>Bone fragments from the crown to the hairline were blown clean away.
> >>>>>The right rear was hanging loose.
> >>>>
> >> . . . snip . . .
> >>
> >>>>>It also created a massive hole in the FRONT of his head.
> >>>>
> >>>>Which somehow, the Parkland medics forgot to mention.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Drs. Salyer, Geisecke ( confusing left with right) did *not* forget to > mention it.
> >>
> >>OK, two medics out of about 20 who thought that the
> >>front/temporal was worth mentioning. I've clipped their WC
> >>testimony, below. I find it less than convincing. I certainly
> >>wouldn't want a doctor operating on me if he didn't know my left
> >>from my right.
> >>
> >>
> >>>You can suppose that the right front wound did not exist at
> >>>Parkland (in which case you have to show how the Z film was faked
> >>
> >>Don't know if/how it was faked; but certainly the Parkland medics
> >>were closer.
> >>
> >> >&how& when & where JFK's right front skull was knocked to bits
> >> - & why the docs
> >>
> >>>above hallucinated a wound there)
> >>
> >>There's a whole book on that.
> >>
> >>
> >>>or you can suppose that Jackie had
> >>>jammed up the gaping right front wound with the brains falling out of it
> >>>en route to Parkland, where it was largely (but not entirely) unnoticed
> >>>because the whole area was covered in scalp & plastered over with half
> >>>dried blood.
> >>
> >>I guess its known that she tried to stem the flow, but is there a
> >>reference to where on the skull she was doing this?
> >>
> >>
> >>>I think the latter is the more reasonable alternative, but if you want to
> >>>defend the former, I'm all ears.
> >>
> >>There is much I don't know or understand, for sure; but it's
> >>hard to discount the initial accounts of the people who were
> >>there, close up to the fresh evidence, first -- ie., the Parkland
> >>medics.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Paul Seaton
> >>
> >>Doc's testimony, below . . .
> >>
> >>regards,
> >>Ken West
> >>
> >>Dr. SALYER.
> >>. . .there were a lot of doctors standing around, and I didn't
> >>really get to observe the nature of the wound in the throat.
> >> . . .I came in on the left side of him and noticed that his
> >>major wound seemed to be in his right temporal area, at least
> >>from the point of view that I could see him, and other than
> >>that--nothing other than he did have a gaping scalp wound--
> >>cranial wound.
> >>
> >>
> >>Dr. GIESECKE. It seemed that from the vertex to the left ear, and
> >>from the browline to the occiput on the left-hand side of the
> >>head the cranium was entirely missing.
> >> Mr. SPECTER. Was that the left-hand side of the head, or the
> >>right-hand side of the head ?
> >> Dr. GIESECKE. I would say the left, but this is just my
> >>memory of it.
> >> Mr. SPECTER. That's your recollection ?
> >> Dr. GIESECKE. Right, like I say, I was there a very short
> >>time really.
> >> Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any other wound or bullet hole
> >>below the large area of missing skull ?
> >> Dr. GIESECKE. No; when I arrived the tracheotomy was in
> >>progress at that time and so I observed no other wound except the
> >>one on the cranium.
> >> Mr. SPECTER. On the cranium itself, did you observe another
> >>bullet hole below the portion of missing skull ?
> >> Dr. GIESECKE. No, sir; this was found later by Dr. Clark--I
> >>didn't see this.
> >> Mr. SPECTER. What makes you say that that hole was found
> >>later by Dr. Clark?
> >> Dr. GIESECKE. Well, this is hearsay--I wasn't there when
> >>they found it and I didn't notice it.
> >> Mr. SPECTER. Well, Dr. Clark didn't observe that hole.
> >> Dr. GIESECKE. Oh, he didn't--I'm sorry.
> >> Mr. SPECTER. From whom did you hear that the hole had been
> >>observed, if you recollect?
> >> Dr. GIESECKE-. Oh--I must be confused. We talked to so many
> >>people about these things--I don't remember.
> >> Mr. SPECTER. Now, with respect to the condition of the
> >>President's neck, what was its status at the time you first
> >>observed it?
> >> Dr. GIESECKE. Well, like I say, they were performing the
> >>tracheotomy, and I personally saw no wound in the neck other than
> >>the tracheotomy wound. As soon as the tracheotomy was completed,
> >>we removed the endotracheal tube and hooked the anesthesia
> >>machine to the tracheotomy tube and efforts were made then to put
> >>in a chest tube, an anterior chest tube.
> >> Mr. SPECTER. How long were you with President Kennedy
> >>altogether ?
> >> Dr. GIESECKE. Approximately 5 minutes.
> >
> >
Ken West
2003-09-03 19:12:11 UTC
Permalink
Ed, at least I told you where I had seen the summary of the
Parkland medics testimony, ie, BE and Murder in Dealy Plaza.
The sources for those books are quoted as including testimony to
the Warren Commission.
I checked one example, here,

http://www.jmasland.com/testimony/parkland/perry_1.htm

and found that it jibed pretty well with the books.
So, until refuted, thats good enough, for me, for now.

Lots of testimony about a posterior wound, which might be an exit
wound, which relates to your question in the subject of this thread.

Now, Ed -- I ORIGINALLY quoted where I got my data, and now,
following your challenge, I have done a reality check on it.

You, on the other hand, have made a sweeping statement to the
effect only one doctor saw a rear wound, and that all the
Parkland doctors
"harshly discredited and dismissed his acct..",
but you have provided zero information which supports this
statement. ie., your statements are unsubtantiated, whereas mine
are not. I even asked you where you got your information, and
you now have written two postings without bothering to respond.
It seems like you're trying to pull a F=A=S=T one, Ed.

I await your citations with great interest.

Ken West


Ed Cage wrote:
> This could be our problem area Ken.. I know
> you require more than a book just S*A*Y*I*N*G
> something.. You are clearly the type who
> would not be satisfied w a statement, followed
> by absolutely no source or reasoning or
> justification for that statement..
> Am I right?
> If so, did the
> "table showing only 2 of 21 medics seeing a front
> wound -- the others all indicating a rear wound"
> statement/position have a SOURCE?
>
> (Ken this above Q from me to you may tend to
> "put you on the spot.") Certainly that is not my
> objective at all.. I just wish to illustrate that
> you were very likely not given a SOURCE for the
> above statement/position you read.. I=F THAT'S SO
> it is not going to be productive for you to so
> readily consider unsubstantiated statements that
> you read, then require a MUCH HIGHER,.. DIFFERENT
> standard of verification for positions that
> contradict what you read.
>
> Respectfully, Ed Sep22233
>
>
>
>
>>Ken West <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<***@hotmail.com>...
>>Ed Cage wrote:
>>
>>>Ken I may be criticized for repeating this but
>>>the PH Drs were concerned w urgent life-saving
>>>methods, Their agenda was 180 different from
>>>the more accurate autopsy acct..
>>>ALSO:
>>>1) There were pictures & X-rays <--IMPORTANT &
>>>NOT FAKED.
>>
>>Important for sure, but so different from Parkland that something
>> needs a better explanation.
>>
>>
>>>2) Really only 1 PH Dr had the BOH wound acct..
>>
>>I guess we're reading different books. My sources so far are BE
>>and Murder in Dealey Plaza. I know your thoughts on the former,
>>and can guess your thoughts on the latter. MiDP presents a table
>>showing only 2 of 21 medics seeing a front wound -- the others
>>all indicating a rear wound, and shows pictures of many of them
>>holding their right hand to the back of the head as they testify.
>>If this F=A=C=T is bogus, Ed, please let me know (and don't waste
>>time trashing the book, just tell me why it is wrong).
>>
>>
>>>McClelland @ PH.. The other Drs harshly discredited
>>>and dismissed his acct..
>>
>>Ed, please help me -- where can I find these dismissals? ie. what
>>is your source?
>>
>>
>>>3) The Z film was NOT FAKED EITHER.
>>
>>I'm not there yet. No opinion.
>>
>>
>>>Ed Sep20518
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Ken West <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<***@hotmail.com>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Paul Seaton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Ken West" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:***@hotmail.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Paul Seaton wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Ken West" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:***@hotmail.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Ed Cage wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>. . .snip . . .
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Anyone want to take a stab at WHY there was no
>>>>>>>>>frontal head shot EXIT wound?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Ed Cage aug311553
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Would a frontal shot create, on exit,
>>>>>>>>"a large wound in his head, in the right rear area?"
>>>>>>>>as reported by Dr. Perry on the day of the event.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The whole right side of his skull opened up.
>>>>>>>Bone fragments from the crown to the hairline were blown clean away.
>>>>>>>The right rear was hanging loose.
>>>>>>
>>>>. . . snip . . .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>It also created a massive hole in the FRONT of his head.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Which somehow, the Parkland medics forgot to mention.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Drs. Salyer, Geisecke ( confusing left with right) did *not* forget to > mention it.
>>>>
>>>>OK, two medics out of about 20 who thought that the
>>>>front/temporal was worth mentioning. I've clipped their WC
>>>>testimony, below. I find it less than convincing. I certainly
>>>>wouldn't want a doctor operating on me if he didn't know my left
>>>
>>>>from my right.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>You can suppose that the right front wound did not exist at
>>>>>Parkland (in which case you have to show how the Z film was faked
>>>>
>>>>Don't know if/how it was faked; but certainly the Parkland medics
>>>>were closer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>&how& when & where JFK's right front skull was knocked to bits
>>>>
>>>>- & why the docs
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>above hallucinated a wound there)
>>>>
>>>>There's a whole book on that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>or you can suppose that Jackie had
>>>>>jammed up the gaping right front wound with the brains falling out of it
>>>>>en route to Parkland, where it was largely (but not entirely) unnoticed
>>>>>because the whole area was covered in scalp & plastered over with half
>>>>>dried blood.
>>>>
>>>>I guess its known that she tried to stem the flow, but is there a
>>>>reference to where on the skull she was doing this?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I think the latter is the more reasonable alternative, but if you want to
>>>>>defend the former, I'm all ears.
>>>>
>>>>There is much I don't know or understand, for sure; but it's
>>>>hard to discount the initial accounts of the people who were
>>>>there, close up to the fresh evidence, first -- ie., the Parkland
>>>>medics.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Paul Seaton
>>>>
>>>>Doc's testimony, below . . .
>>>>
>>>>regards,
>>>>Ken West
>>>>
>>>>Dr. SALYER.
>>>>. . .there were a lot of doctors standing around, and I didn't
>>>>really get to observe the nature of the wound in the throat.
>>>> . . .I came in on the left side of him and noticed that his
>>>>major wound seemed to be in his right temporal area, at least
>>>
>>>>from the point of view that I could see him, and other than
>>>
>>>>that--nothing other than he did have a gaping scalp wound--
>>>>cranial wound.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Dr. GIESECKE. It seemed that from the vertex to the left ear, and
>>>
>>>>from the browline to the occiput on the left-hand side of the
>>>
>>>>head the cranium was entirely missing.
>>>> Mr. SPECTER. Was that the left-hand side of the head, or the
>>>>right-hand side of the head ?
>>>> Dr. GIESECKE. I would say the left, but this is just my
>>>>memory of it.
>>>> Mr. SPECTER. That's your recollection ?
>>>> Dr. GIESECKE. Right, like I say, I was there a very short
>>>>time really.
>>>> Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any other wound or bullet hole
>>>>below the large area of missing skull ?
>>>> Dr. GIESECKE. No; when I arrived the tracheotomy was in
>>>>progress at that time and so I observed no other wound except the
>>>>one on the cranium.
>>>> Mr. SPECTER. On the cranium itself, did you observe another
>>>>bullet hole below the portion of missing skull ?
>>>> Dr. GIESECKE. No, sir; this was found later by Dr. Clark--I
>>>>didn't see this.
>>>> Mr. SPECTER. What makes you say that that hole was found
>>>>later by Dr. Clark?
>>>> Dr. GIESECKE. Well, this is hearsay--I wasn't there when
>>>>they found it and I didn't notice it.
>>>> Mr. SPECTER. Well, Dr. Clark didn't observe that hole.
>>>> Dr. GIESECKE. Oh, he didn't--I'm sorry.
>>>> Mr. SPECTER. From whom did you hear that the hole had been
>>>>observed, if you recollect?
>>>> Dr. GIESECKE-. Oh--I must be confused. We talked to so many
>>>>people about these things--I don't remember.
>>>> Mr. SPECTER. Now, with respect to the condition of the
>>>>President's neck, what was its status at the time you first
>>>>observed it?
>>>> Dr. GIESECKE. Well, like I say, they were performing the
>>>>tracheotomy, and I personally saw no wound in the neck other than
>>>>the tracheotomy wound. As soon as the tracheotomy was completed,
>>>>we removed the endotracheal tube and hooked the anesthesia
>>>>machine to the tracheotomy tube and efforts were made then to put
>>>>in a chest tube, an anterior chest tube.
>>>> Mr. SPECTER. How long were you with President Kennedy
>>>>altogether ?
>>>> Dr. GIESECKE. Approximately 5 minutes.
>>>
>>>
>
Ed Cage
2003-09-04 11:51:31 UTC
Permalink
Ken, I regret having said that (paraphrasing) there was really only 1
PH Dr @ PH who saw the large gapping BOH wound and he was later
discredited. That was an error on my part.. I recall now after seeing
some of the references you cited that there was indeed more of a case
(initially) for a BOH wound at PH.. I had previously read their
initial accts and dismissed and forgotten them as explainable.. Many
others also have btw..
H=O=W=E=V=E=R the crux of what I have been trying to convey is that
NOW the vast majority of observers now explain the numerous PH
discrepancies as being simple human error brought on by a brief and
urgent situation.
BTW Perry himself who you quoted, "a large wound in his head, in
the right rear area" now AGREES w the autopsy report:
Specter: And are the facts set forth in the autopsy report consistent
with your observations and views or are they inconsistent in any way
with your findings and opinions?
Dr Perry: They are quite consistent and I noted initially that they
explained very nicely the circumstances as we observed them at the
time.
Ken my explanation of the controversial PH acctS (by more than 1
Dr btw), is essentially the S – A – M - E as the WC Report, The HSCA
Report, and that of most (not all) JFK researchers and 90% of the
*JFKHs:

The PH account(s) was F*L*A*W*E*D.
Their agenda was not the same as Bethesda's.
The Autopsy was MORE accurate. I agree.

ON THE OTHERHAND
1) the Z Film,
2) the Autopsy photos,
3) and the Autopsy X-Rays were NOT flawed imo.. Not altered either..
They (Those 3 CAMERA accounts) are documented P*R*O*O*F of what
happened which nobody has yet discredited.
Additionally,.. I BELIEVE THE AUTOPSY REPORT. Most (Not all)
observers would agree w me here as well.. Was it flawless? Hardly. Did
it establish where the wounds were? I think it did..
I was impressed w Paul Seaton's input to you.. The only bad thing
about it is that he said it rather than me.. As if that were not
enough, he unfortunately appears far more articulate & knowledgeable
on the subject than me ;~{
"You can suppose that the right front wound did not exist at Parkland
(in which case you have to show how the Z film was faked & how when &
where JFK's right front skull was knocked to bits - & why the docs
above hallucinated a wound there) or you can suppose that Jackie had
jammed up the gaping right front wound with the brains falling out of
it en route to Parkland, where it was largely (but not entirely)
unnoticed because the whole area was covered in scalp & plastered over
with half dried blood. I think the latter is the more reasonable
alternative, but if you want to defend the former, I'm all ears. Paul
Seaton"

DID A=N=Y=O=N=E EVER ADDRESS SEATON'S POSITION?

Ken your reference to the "table showing only 2 of 21 medics seeing a
front wound" still appears undocumented.. Unless you use "BE" and
"Murder in DP".. And you just saw what happened when I put up the
subject of "BE, Fact or Fiction?"
BE R.I.P.

This may be the last time I ever ask you bc I believe I shall
partially withdraw from this thread.. HOWEVER I will willingly do Q&A
w Robert Harris on this subject bc I feel there is much to learn from
him.. Although in principle, I am a LN & he's a hardcore CTer it
seems.. But KNOWLEDGEABLE as hell if you listen.. (Harris is another
learning source for you Ken..)

FINALLY, you (nobody) ever addressed these 2 Qs from me:
a) How do you explain the initial 2" thrust
F>O>R>W>A>R>D when Kennedy was hit?
b) How do you explain the beveled skull indicating a shot
from the rear?

SINCERELY and Respectfully, Ed Sep40107
* JFKH = JFK Heavyweights (Includes CTers Peter F and
Robert Harris btw..)




>Ken West <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>(snip::) Only to save space..
K Wind
2003-09-04 15:03:51 UTC
Permalink
"Ed Cage" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:***@posting.google.com...
> Ken, I regret having said that (paraphrasing) there was really only 1
> PH Dr @ PH who saw the large gapping BOH wound and he was later
> discredited. That was an error on my part.. I recall now after seeing
> some of the references you cited that there was indeed more of a case
> (initially) for a BOH wound at PH.. I had previously read their
> initial accts and dismissed and forgotten them as explainable.. Many
> others also have btw..
> H=O=W=E=V=E=R the crux of what I have been trying to convey is that
> NOW the vast majority of observers now explain the numerous PH
> discrepancies as being simple human error brought on by a brief and
> urgent situation.
> BTW Perry himself who you quoted, "a large wound in his head, in
> the right rear area" now AGREES w the autopsy report:
> Specter: And are the facts set forth in the autopsy report consistent
> with your observations and views or are they inconsistent in any way
> with your findings and opinions?
> Dr Perry: They are quite consistent and I noted initially that they
> explained very nicely the circumstances as we observed them at the
> time.
> Ken my explanation of the controversial PH acctS (by more than 1
> Dr btw), is essentially the S - A - M - E as the WC Report, The HSCA
> Report, and that of most (not all) JFK researchers and 90% of the
> *JFKHs:
>
> The PH account(s) was F*L*A*W*E*D.
> Their agenda was not the same as Bethesda's.
> The Autopsy was MORE accurate. I agree.
>
> ON THE OTHERHAND
> 1) the Z Film,
> 2) the Autopsy photos,
> 3) and the Autopsy X-Rays were NOT flawed imo.. Not altered either..
> They (Those 3 CAMERA accounts) are documented P*R*O*O*F of what
> happened which nobody has yet discredited.
> Additionally,.. I BELIEVE THE AUTOPSY REPORT. Most (Not all)
> observers would agree w me here as well.. Was it flawless? Hardly. Did
> it establish where the wounds were? I think it did..
> I was impressed w Paul Seaton's input to you.. The only bad thing
> about it is that he said it rather than me.. As if that were not
> enough, he unfortunately appears far more articulate & knowledgeable
> on the subject than me ;~{
> "You can suppose that the right front wound did not exist at Parkland
> (in which case you have to show how the Z film was faked & how when &
> where JFK's right front skull was knocked to bits - & why the docs
> above hallucinated a wound there) or you can suppose that Jackie had
> jammed up the gaping right front wound with the brains falling out of
> it en route to Parkland, where it was largely (but not entirely)
> unnoticed because the whole area was covered in scalp & plastered over
> with half dried blood. I think the latter is the more reasonable
> alternative, but if you want to defend the former, I'm all ears. Paul
> Seaton"
>
> DID A=N=Y=O=N=E EVER ADDRESS SEATON'S POSITION?
>
> Ken your reference to the "table showing only 2 of 21 medics seeing a
> front wound" still appears undocumented.. Unless you use "BE" and
> "Murder in DP".. And you just saw what happened when I put up the
> subject of "BE, Fact or Fiction?"
> BE R.I.P.
>
> This may be the last time I ever ask you bc I believe I shall
> partially withdraw from this thread.. HOWEVER I will willingly do Q&A
> w Robert Harris on this subject bc I feel there is much to learn from
> him.. Although in principle, I am a LN & he's a hardcore CTer it
> seems.. But KNOWLEDGEABLE as hell if you listen.. (Harris is another
> learning source for you Ken..)
>
> FINALLY, you (nobody) ever addressed these 2 Qs from me:
> a) How do you explain the initial 2" thrust
> F>O>R>W>A>R>D when Kennedy was hit?
> b) How do you explain the beveled skull indicating a shot
> from the rear?
>
> SINCERELY and Respectfully, Ed Sep40107
> * JFKH = JFK Heavyweights (Includes CTers Peter F and
> Robert Harris btw..)


I think you may have me mixed up with someone else.

All I ask is that you drop this JFK "heavyweights" business when
corresponding with me. If you believe in some aspect of the JFK
assassination, I really don't care if someone else agrees with you. I'm only
interested in your thoughts. Citing someone else's opinion to bring support
to your own, means nothing to me. Do your own work. In my estimation, your
credibility is zero when you use these so-called JFK heavyweights to fluff
up your opinions. Who do you think you are that you can speak for these
people?

Ken

>
>
>
>
> >Ken West <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >(snip::) Only to save space..
>
Barb Junkkarinen
2003-09-04 15:05:23 UTC
Permalink
"Ed Cage" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:***@posting.google.com...
> Ken, I regret having said that (paraphrasing) there was really only 1
> PH Dr @ PH who saw the large gapping BOH wound and he was later
> discredited. That was an error on my part.. I recall now after seeing
> some of the references you cited that there was indeed more of a case
> (initially) for a BOH wound at PH.. I had previously read their
> initial accts and dismissed and forgotten them as explainable.. Many
> others also have btw..

Baloney.

> H=O=W=E=V=E=R the crux of what I have been trying to convey is that
> NOW the vast majority of observers now explain the numerous PH
> discrepancies as being simple human error brought on by a brief and
> urgent situation.

What "vast majority" would that be? What "numerous PH discrepancies" would
those be?


> BTW Perry himself who you quoted, "a large wound in his head, in
> the right rear area" now AGREES w the autopsy report:
> Specter: And are the facts set forth in the autopsy report consistent
> with your observations and views or are they inconsistent in any way
> with your findings and opinions?
> Dr Perry: They are quite consistent and I noted initially that they
> explained very nicely the circumstances as we observed them at the
> time.

Your "now" was his WC testimony in the Spring of 1964 ... and it is no
wonder he agreed that his observations were consistent with the autopsy
findings because the autopsy CONFIRMED damage to the right rear of JFKs head
as noted at Parkland!

Read that again.

Read the autopsy report and diagrams and the testimonies of the autopsists.


> Ken my explanation of the controversial PH acctS (by more than 1
> Dr btw), is essentially the S - A - M - E as the WC Report, The HSCA
> Report, and that of most (not all) JFK researchers and 90% of the
> *JFKHs:

IMHO, this demonstrates nicely a total lack of knowledge or understanding.
Oy.
>
> The PH account(s) was F*L*A*W*E*D.
> Their agenda was not the same as Bethesda's.
> The Autopsy was MORE accurate. I agree.
>
> ON THE OTHERHAND
> 1) the Z Film,
> 2) the Autopsy photos,
> 3) and the Autopsy X-Rays were NOT flawed imo.. Not altered either..
> They (Those 3 CAMERA accounts) are documented P*R*O*O*F of what
> happened which nobody has yet discredited.
> Additionally,.. I BELIEVE THE AUTOPSY REPORT. Most (Not all)
> observers would agree w me here as well.. Was it flawless? Hardly. Did
> it establish where the wounds were? I think it did..

Then you DISagree with almost all of your "heavyweights" .... AND you
DISagree with the Clark panel and HSCA.
Or do you even know what the Clark panel, HSCA and 99.9% of LNs say about
the autopsy and the location of the wounds? Your comments would seem to say
"no."

> I was impressed w Paul Seaton's input to you.. The only bad thing
> about it is that he said it rather than me.. As if that were not
> enough, he unfortunately appears far more articulate & knowledgeable
> on the subject than me ;~{
> "You can suppose that the right front wound did not exist at Parkland
> (in which case you have to show how the Z film was faked & how when &
> where JFK's right front skull was knocked to bits - & why the docs
> above hallucinated a wound there) or you can suppose that Jackie had
> jammed up the gaping right front wound with the brains falling out of
> it en route to Parkland, where it was largely (but not entirely)
> unnoticed because the whole area was covered in scalp & plastered over
> with half dried blood. I think the latter is the more reasonable
> alternative, but if you want to defend the former, I'm all ears. Paul
> Seaton"
>
> DID A=N=Y=O=N=E EVER ADDRESS SEATON'S POSITION?
>
> Ken your reference to the "table showing only 2 of 21 medics seeing a
> front wound" still appears undocumented.. Unless you use "BE" and
> "Murder in DP".. And you just saw what happened when I put up the
> subject of "BE, Fact or Fiction?"
> BE R.I.P.
>
> This may be the last time I ever ask you bc I believe I shall
> partially withdraw from this thread.. HOWEVER I will willingly do Q&A
> w Robert Harris on this subject bc I feel there is much to learn from
> him.. Although in principle, I am a LN & he's a hardcore CTer it
> seems.. But KNOWLEDGEABLE as hell if you listen.. (Harris is another
> learning source for you Ken..)
>
> FINALLY, you (nobody) ever addressed these 2 Qs from me:
> a) How do you explain the initial 2" thrust
> F>O>R>W>A>R>D when Kennedy was hit?
> b) How do you explain the beveled skull indicating a shot
> from the rear?

How do YOU explain your total lack of response to Ken and others who ask you
to provide support and citations for YOUR assertions and claims?
>
> SINCERELY and Respectfully, Ed
Ken West
2003-09-04 23:13:14 UTC
Permalink
Ed, I did respond to Seaton's post,
and I did tell you where my info came from,
and I did respond to your various challenges (which you have
repeated below), at varioust times even if it was to say
"I don't know",
and I've just come off a thread in which I had to repeat several
times what the evidence actually said vs what the other poster
(several times) said it said,
so forgive me, nothing personal, but
I'm not going to respond to your issues below in any further
detail, other than to suggest you'll find it in my previous
posts.
There's just too much to learn to spend time repeating one's self.

Except to say: whatever E=L=S=E the Parkland medics saw,
or didn't see,
they certainly saw a large wound in the right rear.

regards,
Ken West

Ed Cage wrote:
> Ken, I regret having said that (paraphrasing) there was really only 1
> PH Dr @ PH who saw the large gapping BOH wound and he was later
> discredited. That was an error on my part.. I recall now after seeing
> some of the references you cited that there was indeed more of a case
> (initially) for a BOH wound at PH.. I had previously read their
> initial accts and dismissed and forgotten them as explainable.. Many
> others also have btw..
> H=O=W=E=V=E=R the crux of what I have been trying to convey is that
> NOW the vast majority of observers now explain the numerous PH
> discrepancies as being simple human error brought on by a brief and
> urgent situation.
> BTW Perry himself who you quoted, "a large wound in his head, in
> the right rear area" now AGREES w the autopsy report:
> Specter: And are the facts set forth in the autopsy report consistent
> with your observations and views or are they inconsistent in any way
> with your findings and opinions?
> Dr Perry: They are quite consistent and I noted initially that they
> explained very nicely the circumstances as we observed them at the
> time.
> Ken my explanation of the controversial PH acctS (by more than 1
> Dr btw), is essentially the S – A – M - E as the WC Report, The HSCA
> Report, and that of most (not all) JFK researchers and 90% of the
> *JFKHs:
>
> The PH account(s) was F*L*A*W*E*D.
> Their agenda was not the same as Bethesda's.
> The Autopsy was MORE accurate. I agree.
>
> ON THE OTHERHAND
> 1) the Z Film,
> 2) the Autopsy photos,
> 3) and the Autopsy X-Rays were NOT flawed imo.. Not altered either..
> They (Those 3 CAMERA accounts) are documented P*R*O*O*F of what
> happened which nobody has yet discredited.
> Additionally,.. I BELIEVE THE AUTOPSY REPORT. Most (Not all)
> observers would agree w me here as well.. Was it flawless? Hardly. Did
> it establish where the wounds were? I think it did..
> I was impressed w Paul Seaton's input to you.. The only bad thing
> about it is that he said it rather than me.. As if that were not
> enough, he unfortunately appears far more articulate & knowledgeable
> on the subject than me ;~{
> "You can suppose that the right front wound did not exist at Parkland
> (in which case you have to show how the Z film was faked & how when &
> where JFK's right front skull was knocked to bits - & why the docs
> above hallucinated a wound there) or you can suppose that Jackie had
> jammed up the gaping right front wound with the brains falling out of
> it en route to Parkland, where it was largely (but not entirely)
> unnoticed because the whole area was covered in scalp & plastered over
> with half dried blood. I think the latter is the more reasonable
> alternative, but if you want to defend the former, I'm all ears. Paul
> Seaton"
>
> DID A=N=Y=O=N=E EVER ADDRESS SEATON'S POSITION?
>
> Ken your reference to the "table showing only 2 of 21 medics seeing a
> front wound" still appears undocumented.. Unless you use "BE" and
> "Murder in DP".. And you just saw what happened when I put up the
> subject of "BE, Fact or Fiction?"
> BE R.I.P.
>
> This may be the last time I ever ask you bc I believe I shall
> partially withdraw from this thread.. HOWEVER I will willingly do Q&A
> w Robert Harris on this subject bc I feel there is much to learn from
> him.. Although in principle, I am a LN & he's a hardcore CTer it
> seems.. But KNOWLEDGEABLE as hell if you listen.. (Harris is another
> learning source for you Ken..)
>
> FINALLY, you (nobody) ever addressed these 2 Qs from me:
> a) How do you explain the initial 2" thrust
> F>O>R>W>A>R>D when Kennedy was hit?
> b) How do you explain the beveled skull indicating a shot
> from the rear?
>
> SINCERELY and Respectfully, Ed Sep40107
> * JFKH = JFK Heavyweights (Includes CTers Peter F and
> Robert Harris btw..)
>
>
>
>
>
>>Ken West <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>(snip::) Only to save space..
>
>
Barb Junkkarinen
2003-09-05 02:40:57 UTC
Permalink
"Ken West" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@hotmail.com...
> Ed, I did respond to Seaton's post,
> and I did tell you where my info came from,
> and I did respond to your various challenges (which you have
> repeated below), at varioust times even if it was to say
> "I don't know",
> and I've just come off a thread in which I had to repeat several
> times what the evidence actually said vs what the other poster
> (several times) said it said,
> so forgive me, nothing personal, but
> I'm not going to respond to your issues below in any further
> detail, other than to suggest you'll find it in my previous
> posts.
> There's just too much to learn to spend time repeating one's self.
>
> Except to say: whatever E=L=S=E the Parkland medics saw,
> or didn't see,
> they certainly saw a large wound in the right rear.
>
> regards,
> Ken West

AMEN!
John Hill
2003-09-05 19:31:47 UTC
Permalink
Barb Junkkarinen <***@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:***@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> "Ken West" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:***@hotmail.com...
> > Ed, I did respond to Seaton's post,
> > and I did tell you where my info came from,
> > and I did respond to your various challenges (which you have
> > repeated below), at varioust times even if it was to say
> > "I don't know",
> > and I've just come off a thread in which I had to repeat several
> > times what the evidence actually said vs what the other poster
> > (several times) said it said,
> > so forgive me, nothing personal, but
> > I'm not going to respond to your issues below in any further
> > detail, other than to suggest you'll find it in my previous
> > posts.
> > There's just too much to learn to spend time repeating one's self.
> >
> > Except to say: whatever E=L=S=E the Parkland medics saw,
> > or didn't see,
> > they certainly saw a large wound in the right rear.
> >
> > regards,
> > Ken West
>
> AMEN!

DOUBLE AMEN!
--
John Hill (joisa)
Ed Cage
2003-09-06 05:42:08 UTC
Permalink
Ken sorry to ask again but I HONESTLY did not
see your response(s) to my 2 important Qs below:

a) How do you explain the initial 2" thrust
F>O>R>W>A>R>D when Kennedy was hit?
b) How do you explain the beveled skull
indicating a shot from the rear?

PLEASE DON'T BE IRRITATED, but..
1) Can you take a second and answer again? OR
2) Tell me what thread these 2 answers from
you are under so I can look it up? OR..(My preference)
3) Cut & Paste your answers to these 2 very
IMPORTANT Qs from me.

Hope this doesn't sound burdensome Ken but I get
asked all the time to post/re-post my answers..
I ALWAYS do it. Always.
Sometimes it results it me being called
"repetitive" when I give the same answer to
essentially the SAME proposition, but I NEVER
D=U=C=K a Q. Never. The 2 Qs above are VERY
IMPORTANT Ken.. Even if your answer(s) was "I
don't know" (which I now suspect), just say so..
I promise not to rib you about it.. I am currently
trying to make a sustained effort for less sarcasm
& WiZe=KraXs on MY part.. I honestly feel it
damages a person's credibility and substantially
D - E - L - U - T - E - S THEIR MESSAGE!!

Ed Sep50825




>Ken West <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<***@hotmail.com>...
> Ed, I did respond to Seaton's post,
> and I did tell you where my info came from,
> and I did respond to your various challenges (which you have
> repeated below), at varioust times even if it was to say
> "I don't know",
> and I've just come off a thread in which I had to repeat several
> times what the evidence actually said vs what the other poster
> (several times) said it said,
> so forgive me, nothing personal, but
> I'm not going to respond to your issues below in any further
> detail, other than to suggest you'll find it in my previous
> posts.
> There's just too much to learn to spend time repeating one's self.
>
> Except to say: whatever E=L=S=E the Parkland medics saw,
> or didn't see,
> they certainly saw a large wound in the right rear.
>
> regards,
> Ken West
>
Ed Cage
2003-09-06 14:21:05 UTC
Permalink
Okay Ken, you're 50% off the hook..
You D=I=D address the problem which all FRONTAL
SHOT ADVOCATES avoid it seems..
"How do you explain the 2" FORWARD thrust when
Kennedy was initially hit?"

Your answer was (Paraphrasing from memory):
"I don't know.. Are you sure it was caused by
the bullet impact?"*

Now for the beveled skull indicating a rear shot..
Can you explain this one?
I REALLY don't think you took a swing at this
one Ken..

Thanx, Ed Sep60323
* I will give you credit for a response here..




>***@earthlink.net (Ed Cage) wrote in message news:<***@posting.google.com>...
> Ken sorry to ask again but I HONESTLY did not
> see your response(s) to my 2 important Qs below:
>
> a) How do you explain the initial 2" thrust
> F>O>R>W>A>R>D when Kennedy was hit?
> b) How do you explain the beveled skull
> indicating a shot from the rear?
>
> PLEASE DON'T BE IRRITATED, but..
> 1) Can you take a second and answer again? OR
> 2) Tell me what thread these 2 answers from
> you are under so I can look it up? OR..(My preference)
> 3) Cut & Paste your answers to these 2 very
> IMPORTANT Qs from me.
>
> Hope this doesn't sound burdensome Ken but I get
> asked all the time to post/re-post my answers..
> I ALWAYS do it. Always.
> Sometimes it results it me being called
> "repetitive" when I give the same answer to
> essentially the SAME proposition, but I NEVER
> D=U=C=K a Q. Never. The 2 Qs above are VERY
> IMPORTANT Ken.. Even if your answer(s) was "I
> don't know" (which I now suspect), just say so..
> I promise not to rib you about it.. I am currently
> trying to make a sustained effort for less sarcasm
> & WiZe=KraXs on MY part.. I honestly feel it
> damages a person's credibility and substantially
> D - E - L - U - T - E - S THEIR MESSAGE!!
>
> Ed Sep50825
>
>
>
>
> >Ken West <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<***@hotmail.com>...
> > Ed, I did respond to Seaton's post,
> > and I did tell you where my info came from,
> > and I did respond to your various challenges (which you have
> > repeated below), at varioust times even if it was to say
> > "I don't know",
> > and I've just come off a thread in which I had to repeat several
> > times what the evidence actually said vs what the other poster
> > (several times) said it said,
> > so forgive me, nothing personal, but
> > I'm not going to respond to your issues below in any further
> > detail, other than to suggest you'll find it in my previous
> > posts.
> > There's just too much to learn to spend time repeating one's self.
> >
> > Except to say: whatever E=L=S=E the Parkland medics saw,
> > or didn't see,
> > they certainly saw a large wound in the right rear.
> >
> > regards,
> > Ken West
> >
Ken West
2003-09-07 00:57:48 UTC
Permalink
Ed, thanks for doing your own check -- I was dreading HAVING
to spend even more time today on this board, chasing old stuff,
already being above-budget vis a vis my domestic life.

Also, as it turns out, "JFK" just happened to be the mid-night
movie last night, so I HAD to stay up until 3AM, never having
seen it before. (After being on this group, I certainly
didn't learn anything new.)

1.
To refresh you a little more on the 2", yes, that was my basic
answer, but more importantly,
I suggested you compare the splash of blood on
Z313 with Chad Z.'s turkey shoot, ie.,
WHICH WAY IS THE INITIAL SPLASH, RELATIVE TO THE SHOOTER?
Did you ever check that out?

Since then, I will add another theory about the 2":
maybe the famous back wound which your expert Dr. Hume
declared to be "non-transiting"(on Friday night)
was related to the 2".
Do you KNOW that the 2" was caused by the/a head shot?,
or by any shot?

2.
In terms of the bevelling of the skull, I recall that I
pleaded ignorance, and declared that I was blessed, or
cursed, by the fact that BE was the reason I had joined this
group, and as such, all I knew about the medical evidence is
that it was/is contradictory and confusing, and that I needed
to study more before coming to a conclusion.

I don't know, and won't seek out that post, but I'm pretty sure
it was the inspiration for your subsequent thread:
Lifton's BEST EVIDENCE; Fact or Fiction? 28August.
That's the one where you implied BE talked about fake trees.

Which reminds me Ed, did you ever renounce that claim?
Which reminds me, am I still waiting for citations on how all
all the Dallas doctors refuted their original observations?

Can we call it a draw?

regards,
Ken West



Ed Cage wrote:
> Okay Ken, you're 50% off the hook..
> You D=I=D address the problem which all FRONTAL
> SHOT ADVOCATES avoid it seems..
> "How do you explain the 2" FORWARD thrust when
> Kennedy was initially hit?"
>
> Your answer was (Paraphrasing from memory):
> "I don't know.. Are you sure it was caused by
> the bullet impact?"*
>
> Now for the beveled skull indicating a rear shot..
> Can you explain this one?
> I REALLY don't think you took a swing at this
> one Ken..
>
> Thanx, Ed Sep60323
> * I will give you credit for a response here..
>
>
>
>
>
>>***@earthlink.net (Ed Cage) wrote in message news:<***@posting.google.com>...
>>Ken sorry to ask again but I HONESTLY did not
>>see your response(s) to my 2 important Qs below:
>>
>>a) How do you explain the initial 2" thrust
>>F>O>R>W>A>R>D when Kennedy was hit?
>>b) How do you explain the beveled skull
>>indicating a shot from the rear?
>>
>>PLEASE DON'T BE IRRITATED, but..
>>1) Can you take a second and answer again? OR
>>2) Tell me what thread these 2 answers from
>>you are under so I can look it up? OR..(My preference)
>>3) Cut & Paste your answers to these 2 very
>>IMPORTANT Qs from me.
>>
>>Hope this doesn't sound burdensome Ken but I get
>>asked all the time to post/re-post my answers..
>> I ALWAYS do it. Always.
>> Sometimes it results it me being called
>>"repetitive" when I give the same answer to
>>essentially the SAME proposition, but I NEVER
>>D=U=C=K a Q. Never. The 2 Qs above are VERY
>>IMPORTANT Ken.. Even if your answer(s) was "I
>>don't know" (which I now suspect), just say so..
>>I promise not to rib you about it.. I am currently
>>trying to make a sustained effort for less sarcasm
>>& WiZe=KraXs on MY part.. I honestly feel it
>>damages a person's credibility and substantially
>> D - E - L - U - T - E - S THEIR MESSAGE!!
>>
>>Ed Sep50825
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Ken West <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<***@hotmail.com>...
>>>Ed, I did respond to Seaton's post,
>>>and I did tell you where my info came from,
>>>and I did respond to your various challenges (which you have
>>>repeated below), at varioust times even if it was to say
>>>"I don't know",
>>>and I've just come off a thread in which I had to repeat several
>>>times what the evidence actually said vs what the other poster
>>>(several times) said it said,
>>>so forgive me, nothing personal, but
>>>I'm not going to respond to your issues below in any further
>>>detail, other than to suggest you'll find it in my previous
>>>posts.
>>>There's just too much to learn to spend time repeating one's self.
>>>
>>>Except to say: whatever E=L=S=E the Parkland medics saw,
>>>or didn't see,
>>>they certainly saw a large wound in the right rear.
>>>
>>>regards,
>>>Ken West
>>>
>>
>
John Fiorentino
2003-09-07 03:22:49 UTC
Permalink
Ken West <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@hotmail.com...
> Ed, thanks for doing your own check -- I was dreading HAVING
> to spend even more time today on this board, chasing old stuff,
> already being above-budget vis a vis my domestic life.
>
> Also, as it turns out, "JFK" just happened to be the mid-night
> movie last night, so I HAD to stay up until 3AM, never having
> seen it before. (After being on this group, I certainly
> didn't learn anything new.)
>
> 1.
> To refresh you a little more on the 2", yes, that was my basic
> answer, but more importantly,
> I suggested you compare the splash of blood on
> Z313 with Chad Z.'s turkey shoot, ie.,
> WHICH WAY IS THE INITIAL SPLASH, RELATIVE TO THE SHOOTER?
> Did you ever check that out?
>
> Since then, I will add another theory about the 2":
> maybe the famous back wound which your expert Dr. Hume
> declared to be "non-transiting"(on Friday night)
> was related to the 2".
> Do you KNOW that the 2" was caused by the/a head shot?,
> or by any shot?
>
> 2.
> In terms of the bevelling of the skull, I recall that I
> pleaded ignorance, and declared that I was blessed, or
> cursed, by the fact that BE was the reason I had joined this
> group, and as such, all I knew about the medical evidence is
> that it was/is contradictory and confusing, and that I needed
> to study more before coming to a conclusion.
>
> I don't know, and won't seek out that post, but I'm pretty sure
> it was the inspiration for your subsequent thread:
> Lifton's BEST EVIDENCE; Fact or Fiction? 28August.
> That's the one where you implied BE talked about fake trees.
>
> Which reminds me Ed, did you ever renounce that claim?
> Which reminds me, am I still waiting for citations on how all
> all the Dallas doctors refuted their original observations?
>
> Can we call it a draw?
>
> regards,
> Ken West
>
>
>
> Ed Cage wrote:
> > Okay Ken, you're 50% off the hook..
> > You D=I=D address the problem which all FRONTAL
> > SHOT ADVOCATES avoid it seems..
> > "How do you explain the 2" FORWARD thrust when
> > Kennedy was initially hit?"
> >
> > Your answer was (Paraphrasing from memory):
> > "I don't know.. Are you sure it was caused by
> > the bullet impact?"*
> >
> > Now for the beveled skull indicating a rear shot..
> > Can you explain this one?
> > I REALLY don't think you took a swing at this
> > one Ken..
> >
> > Thanx, Ed Sep60323
> > * I will give you credit for a response here..
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>***@earthlink.net (Ed Cage) wrote in message
news:<***@posting.google.com>...
> >>Ken sorry to ask again but I HONESTLY did not
> >>see your response(s) to my 2 important Qs below:
> >>
> >>a) How do you explain the initial 2" thrust
> >>F>O>R>W>A>R>D when Kennedy was hit?
> >>b) How do you explain the beveled skull
> >>indicating a shot from the rear?
> >>
> >>PLEASE DON'T BE IRRITATED, but..
> >>1) Can you take a second and answer again? OR
> >>2) Tell me what thread these 2 answers from
> >>you are under so I can look it up? OR..(My preference)
> >>3) Cut & Paste your answers to these 2 very
> >>IMPORTANT Qs from me.
> >>
> >>Hope this doesn't sound burdensome Ken but I get
> >>asked all the time to post/re-post my answers..
> >> I ALWAYS do it. Always.
> >> Sometimes it results it me being called
> >>"repetitive" when I give the same answer to
> >>essentially the SAME proposition, but I NEVER
> >>D=U=C=K a Q. Never. The 2 Qs above are VERY
> >>IMPORTANT Ken.. Even if your answer(s) was "I
> >>don't know" (which I now suspect), just say so..
> >>I promise not to rib you about it.. I am currently
> >>trying to make a sustained effort for less sarcasm
> >>& WiZe=KraXs on MY part.. I honestly feel it
> >>damages a person's credibility and substantially
> >> D - E - L - U - T - E - S THEIR MESSAGE!!
> >>
> >>Ed Sep50825
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Ken West <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<***@hotmail.com>...
> >>>Ed, I did respond to Seaton's post,
> >>>and I did tell you where my info came from,
> >>>and I did respond to your various challenges (which you have
> >>>repeated below), at varioust times even if it was to say
> >>>"I don't know",
> >>>and I've just come off a thread in which I had to repeat several
> >>>times what the evidence actually said vs what the other poster
> >>>(several times) said it said,
> >>>so forgive me, nothing personal, but
> >>>I'm not going to respond to your issues below in any further
> >>>detail, other than to suggest you'll find it in my previous
> >>>posts.
> >>>There's just too much to learn to spend time repeating one's self.
> >>>
> >>>Except to say: whatever E=L=S=E the Parkland medics saw,
> >>>or didn't see,
> >>>they certainly saw a large wound in the right rear.
> >>>
> >>>regards,
> >>>Ken West

Ken:

The only substantive "contradictory and confusing" things in the medical
evidence are in the fertile imagination of David Lifton.

John F.
Ed Cage
2003-09-07 19:33:08 UTC
Permalink
Ken West your courtesy & demeanor is noticed & appreciated.
I am concerned (justifiably imo) that this fine elite JFK
NG is turniong into alt.assassination.jerryspringer
That's the reason I've told you several times that I will
withdraw if I offend you.. Sometimes things get posted late
OR frequently they are missed. Here is the responses you
inquired about from me.. This first one has been posted 3x, it
was NOT POSTED on my 4th attempt, which I understand..
Dear Mods, please post my #5 re Perry & PH Drs...
==========================ED ON========================
"Ken West, I regret having said that (paraphrasing) there was really
only 1 PH Dr @ PH who saw the large gapping BOH wound and he was later
discredited. That was an error on my part.. I recall now after seeing
some of the references you cited that there was indeed more of a case
(initially) for a BOH wound at PH.. I had previously read their
initial accts and dismissed and forgotten them as explainable.. Many
others also have btw..
H=O=W=E=V=E=R the crux of what I have been trying to convey is that
NOW the vast majority of observers now explain the numerous PH
discrepancies as being simple human error brought on by a brief and
urgent situation.
BTW Perry himself who you quoted, "a large wound in his head, in the
right rear area" now AGREES w the autopsy report:
Specter: And are the facts set forth in the autopsy report consistent
with your observations and views or are they inconsistent in any way
with your findings and opinions?
Dr Perry: They are quite consistent and I noted initially that they
explained very nicely the circumstances as we observed them at the
time.
Ken my explanation of the controversial PH acctS (by more than 1
Dr btw), is essentially the S – A – M - E as the WC Report, The HSCA
Report, and that of most (not all) JFK researchers and 90% of the
*JFKHs:

The PH account(s) was F*L*A*W*E*D.
The Autopsy was MORE accurate. I agree.

ON THE OTHERHAND
1) the Z Film,
2) the Autopsy photos,
3) and the Autopsy X-Rays were NOT flawed imo.. Not altered either..
Ken West, those 3 camera accounts) are documented P*R*O*O*F of what
happened which nobody has yet discredited.
Additionally,.. I BELIEVE THE AUTOPSY REPORT. Most (Not all)
observers would agree w me here as well.. Was it flawless? Hardly. Did
it establish where the wounds were? I think it did.."
======================ED OFF==============================

Ken West, there I AGAIN* addressed Perry and the PH Drs controversy. I
hope the Mods will post it for 4th time.. I would have privately sent
you an email but when there is a public post inquiring as to my
follow-thru (credibility) I feel I MUST respond publicly. HOWEVER if
you/we have future somewhat TENSE discrepancies, may I suggest we take
it PRIVATE?
Now for your Q about: Do I "know the initial 2" forward movement
was caused by a the head shot?"
YES, it was caused by the head shot.
That one is on TAPE! (P*R*O*O*F)
I also accept your answer on the beveled skull which indicates a
rear shot.. Your answer is (paraphrasing) that you "plead ignorance."
I accept that and I accept the other "Don't knows" on my initial 2"
forward thrust question.
Re the "fake trees" I posted that response multiple times as
well.. My problem is that when these things are challenged publicly I
MUST RESPOND PUBLICLY. I have begun asking the Mods what can be done
about this.. I have suggested PRIVATE emails but once a challenge
claim has been made PUBLICLY, I MUST RESPOND PUBLICALLY. My responses
are not always posted the 3, 4th time.. So there is a certain
responsibility to be careful what you "hear on the street" Ken as
opposed to the D-O-C-U-M-E-N-T-E-D facts.
(This may cause the entire post to be rejected bc this
theme/context has been posted multiple times):
=================ED ON ==================
"Barb.. Did you "help" Ken w the artificial tree Q? If so, let's not
do that "H=E=L=P other posters" stuff.. Fair enuff? Barb have you ever
noticed N-O-N-E of those you chose to "HELP" ever come BACK to you for
more "help?" MY POST ATTEMPTS TO SOLICIT L*I*F*T*O*N HIMSELF! (He is a
POSTER in the NG!) HOWEVER those who wish to "help" Lifton deal w my
first 8 points may do so.. My points # 9 & 10 do not deal w Best
Evidence.. Nor does my reference to the fake tree.. I was referring to
some research (In the 1960's) work DSL did years before he got down to
researching for Best Evidence which was published in 1980. BUT I DOUBT
IF LIFTON BELIEVES that fake tree stuff any more.. And I seriously
doubt he still believes his position on the GK foliage and the
non-existent images he saw in the GK any more.."
===================================================
Ken West, please allow me to call to your attention to my 2 pts which
were
exploited imo by someone other than you.. (Your "helper")

* "Best Evidence which was published in 1980."
* "During the mid 60's Lifton did his own photo enhancements of the
shrubbery on the GK and concluded that one tree had been artificial on
11-22-63"

Summary of my post/quotes:
1) BE published in 1980
2) Lifton's mid 60's research concluded the artificial date.
I POSTED/QUOTED TWO DIFFERENT DATES. That's why your mentor was forced
to change this particular nit-pick to "I=M=P=L=I=E=D."

Just like I said Ken West.. I never DUCK a Q..

Ed Sep70631
PS: Ken West this fine elite NG is unfortunately beginning to look
like
alt.assassination.jerryspringer
But I feel I MUST RESPOND to public Qs & accusations.. So IF you wish
to continue, can you email me PRIVATELY ?
* There is a good chance THIS post may not be posted bc the theme
context has been posted multiple times. But I am hoping the Mods
(.John & Peter F) will allow it since I have been asked repeatedly to
respond to the SAME request(S) - Perhaps the multiple requests should
be screened more carefully as well. More TIME CONSUMING



Ken West <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<***@hotmail.com>...
> Ed, thanks for doing your own check -- I was dreading HAVING
(snip::)
Barb Junkkarinen
2003-09-08 01:25:03 UTC
Permalink
"Ed Cage" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:***@posting.google.com...
> Ken West your courtesy & demeanor is noticed & appreciated.
> I am concerned (justifiably imo) that this fine elite JFK
> NG is turniong into alt.assassination.jerryspringer
> That's the reason I've told you several times that I will
> withdraw if I offend you.. Sometimes things get posted late
> OR frequently they are missed. Here is the responses you
> inquired about from me.. This first one has been posted 3x, it
> was NOT POSTED on my 4th attempt, which I understand..
> Dear Mods, please post my #5 re Perry & PH Drs...
> ==========================ED ON========================
> "Ken West, I regret having said that (paraphrasing) there was really
> only 1 PH Dr @ PH who saw the large gapping BOH wound and he was later
> discredited. That was an error on my part.

Good!

> I recall now after seeing
> some of the references you cited that there was indeed more of a case
> (initially) for a BOH wound at PH.. I had previously read their
> initial accts and dismissed and forgotten them as explainable.. Many
> others also have btw..
> H=O=W=E=V=E=R the crux of what I have been trying to convey is that
> NOW the vast majority of observers now explain the numerous PH
> discrepancies as being simple human error brought on by a brief and
> urgent situation.

Exactly WHAT "numerous PH discrepancies" would those be, Ed? Are you
saying that their reporting of a gaping avulsed wound in the right rear of
the President's head was an error on the part of something like a dozen
medical personnel at Parkland?

Please respond.

> BTW Perry himself who you quoted, "a large wound in his head, in the
> right rear area" now AGREES w the autopsy report:
> Specter: And are the facts set forth in the autopsy report consistent
> with your observations and views or are they inconsistent in any way
> with your findings and opinions?
> Dr Perry: They are quite consistent and I noted initially that they
> explained very nicely the circumstances as we observed them at the
> time.

I've replied to this same thing before. You ignored it. And here you
repeat it. That was (obviously) Perry's testimony before the WC. Sure he
agreed with the autopsy report .... that report CORROBORATED what the
Parkland personnel had reported seeing as regards the wound in the right
rear of the President's head.

You do know, don't you, that at the time of the WC, the head wound was not
an issue of ANY dispute???? There were no "discrepancies" between the
Parkland report and the autopsy findings as regards the head wound.

You did note, didn't you, that in what you quoted above, Specter is asking
Perry if there are any discrepancies between what he observed at Parkland
and the autopsy findings ... and Perry said no. Again, the head wound was
not in dispute; the autopsy found the throat wound was an exit and Perry
had no prob with that given what the autopsy said about it (never mind
here that they completely finessed the throat wound in the autopsy
report).

> Ken my explanation of the controversial PH acctS (by more than 1
> Dr btw), is essentially the S - A - M - E as the WC Report, The HSCA
> Report, and that of most (not all) JFK researchers and 90% of the
> *JFKHs:
>
> The PH account(s) was F*L*A*W*E*D.
> The Autopsy was MORE accurate.

Please state exactly what PH accounts were "flawed" re the head wound, and
how they conflicted with the autopsy report.

You've ignored this innumerable times. Please address it.

> I agree.
>
> ON THE OTHERHAND
> 1) the Z Film,
> 2) the Autopsy photos,
> 3) and the Autopsy X-Rays were NOT flawed imo.. Not altered either..
> Ken West, those 3 camera accounts) are documented P*R*O*O*F of what
> happened which nobody has yet discredited.
> Additionally,.. I BELIEVE THE AUTOPSY REPORT. Most (Not all)
> observers would agree w me here as well.. Was it flawless? Hardly. Did
> it establish where the wounds were? I think it did.."

Then you agree with Parkland about the large wound in the right rear of
JFK's head AND you agree the entry was near the EOP.

Good. :-)

> ======================ED OFF==============================
>
> Ken West, there I AGAIN* addressed Perry and the PH Drs controversy. I
> hope the Mods will post it for 4th time.. I would have privately sent
> you an email but when there is a public post inquiring as to my
> follow-thru (credibility) I feel I MUST respond publicly. HOWEVER if
> you/we have future somewhat TENSE discrepancies, may I suggest we take
> it PRIVATE?
> Now for your Q about: Do I "know the initial 2" forward movement
> was caused by a the head shot?"
> YES, it was caused by the head shot.
> That one is on TAPE! (P*R*O*O*F)
> I also accept your answer on the beveled skull which indicates a
> rear shot.. Your answer is (paraphrasing) that you "plead ignorance."
> I accept that and I accept the other "Don't knows" on my initial 2"
> forward thrust question.
> Re the "fake trees" I posted that response multiple times as
> well.. My problem is that when these things are challenged publicly I
> MUST RESPOND PUBLICLY. I have begun asking the Mods what can be done
> about this.. I have suggested PRIVATE emails but once a challenge
> claim has been made PUBLICLY, I MUST RESPOND PUBLICALLY. My responses
> are not always posted the 3, 4th time.. So there is a certain
> responsibility to be careful what you "hear on the street" Ken as
> opposed to the D-O-C-U-M-E-N-T-E-D facts.
> (This may cause the entire post to be rejected bc this
> theme/context has been posted multiple times):
> =================ED ON ==================
> "Barb.. Did you "help" Ken w the artificial tree Q? If so, let's not
> do that "H=E=L=P other posters" stuff.. Fair enuff? Barb have you ever
> noticed N-O-N-E of those you chose to "HELP" ever come BACK to you for
> more "help?" MY POST ATTEMPTS TO SOLICIT L*I*F*T*O*N HIMSELF! (He is a
> POSTER in the NG!) HOWEVER those who wish to "help" Lifton deal w my
> first 8 points may do so.. My points # 9 & 10 do not deal w Best
> Evidence.. Nor does my reference to the fake tree.. I was referring to
> some research (In the 1960's) work DSL did years before he got down to
> researching for Best Evidence which was published in 1980. BUT I DOUBT
> IF LIFTON BELIEVES that fake tree stuff any more.. And I seriously
> doubt he still believes his position on the GK foliage and the
> non-existent images he saw in the GK any more.."
> ===================================================
> Ken West, please allow me to call to your attention to my 2 pts which
> were
> exploited imo by someone other than you.. (Your "helper")
>
> * "Best Evidence which was published in 1980."
> * "During the mid 60's Lifton did his own photo enhancements of the
> shrubbery on the GK and concluded that one tree had been artificial on
> 11-22-63"

We all know that, Ed. And I replied to you with that info when you first
put up your post that made it sound like BE dealt with fake trees. It's
all documented, Ed. I know you appreciate that. :-)

>
> Summary of my post/quotes:
> 1) BE published in 1980
> 2) Lifton's mid 60's research concluded the artificial date.
> I POSTED/QUOTED TWO DIFFERENT DATES. That's why your mentor was forced
> to change this particular nit-pick to "I=M=P=L=I=E=D."
>
> Just like I said Ken West.. I never DUCK a Q..

Great .... then, in the interests of struttin' that credibility and claim
that you never duck a Q right out onto center stage, please address the
questions I raised above based on what you said.

You said:

"NOW the vast majority of observers now explain the numerous PH
discrepancies as being simple human error brought on by a brief and
urgent situation."

WHAT "numerous PH discrepancies" are you referring to, Ed?

AND, you also said:

"Additionally,.. I BELIEVE THE AUTOPSY REPORT. Most (Not all)
observers would agree w me here as well.. Was it flawless? Hardly. Did
it establish where the wounds were? I think it did.."

Then you agree with Parkland about the large wound in the right rear of
JFK's head AND you agree the entry was near the EOP????

You do know that at the time of the WC, the head wound was not in dispute?

And, you know, don't you that the autopsy findings CORROBORATED the nasty
wound Parkland personnel reported seeing in the right rear of JFK's head?

Please respond. It'll help all of us understand where you are coming from
better.

Whew ... it'll be great to have even those few issues cleared up once and
for all.

>
> Ed Sep70631
> PS: Ken West this fine elite NG is unfortunately beginning to look
> like
> alt.assassination.jerryspringer
> But I feel I MUST RESPOND to public Qs & accusations.. So IF you wish
> to continue, can you email me PRIVATELY ?
> * There is a good chance THIS post may not be posted bc the theme
> context has been posted multiple times. But I am hoping the Mods
> (.John & Peter F) will allow it since I have been asked repeatedly to
> respond to the SAME request(S) - Perhaps the multiple requests should
> be screened more carefully as well. More TIME CONSUMING

If you'd stick to dialoguing on the evidence, give and take, and lose the
long winding road of explanations, excuses, reiterations in multiple
threads and other excess baggage, the newsgroup floor wouldn't look like
the Jerry Springer stage at all, Ed. Remember .... keep it simple.:-)

Barb :-)
Ed Cage
2003-09-03 16:17:10 UTC
Permalink
K Wind:
Re: Your reference to:
"You keep saying something about an
accurate autopsy."<--K Wind quote.

I'll call you KW, okay? So we don't confuse
the 2 Kens.. I do the same w John F, Peter F, etc.
That's why Dr. John McAdams is semi-forced to use
his .John moniker btw..
It helps my referrals.. Also I am aware some
people are not always happy if they are associated
w quotes others w same 1st name are attributed..
(No direct ref to Ken West bc he seems to agree w
you on everything.. ) Are you Ken West btw?

All I have said was the autopsy was "infinitely
MORE accurate than PH" and the "autopsy was 180
degrees MORE accurate than PH." That's the way
95% of JFK Heavyweights* see it, that's the way
the HSCA & WC saw it, and I stand by that
observation..

Ed Sep30704
*Henceforth: JFK Heavyweights (Including Peter F)
are referred to by me as: "JFKH"



>"K Wind" <***@sandstorm.neo.rr.com> wrote in message news:<0m85b.30111$***@twister.neo.rr.com>...
> "Ed Cage" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:***@posting.google.com...
> > Ken I may be criticized for repeating this but
> > the PH Drs were concerned w urgent life-saving
> > methods, Their agenda was 180 different from
> > the more accurate autopsy acct..
>
> You keep saying something about an accurate autopsy. Are you aware that
> Humes wasn't aware of the throat wound until the next day?
>
> Ken
>
>
> > ALSO:
> > 1) There were pictures & X-rays <--IMPORTANT &
> > NOT FAKED.
> > 2) Really only 1 PH Dr had the BOH wound acct..
> > McClelland @ PH.. The other Drs harshly discredited
> > and dismissed his acct..
> > 3) The Z film was NOT FAKED EITHER.
> >
> > Ed Sep20518
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Ken West <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<***@hotmail.com>...
> > > Paul Seaton wrote:
> > > > "Ken West" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:***@hotmail.com...
> > > >
> > > >>Paul Seaton wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>"Ken West" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > >>>news:***@hotmail.com...
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>Ed Cage wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>. . .snip . . .
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>>>Anyone want to take a stab at WHY there was no
> > > >>>>>frontal head shot EXIT wound?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>Ed Cage aug311553
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>Would a frontal shot create, on exit,
> > > >>>>"a large wound in his head, in the right rear area?"
> > > >>>>as reported by Dr. Perry on the day of the event.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>The whole right side of his skull opened up.
> > > >>>Bone fragments from the crown to the hairline were blown clean away.
> > > >>>The right rear was hanging loose.
> . . . snip . . .
> > > >>>It also created a massive hole in the FRONT of his head.
> > > >>
> > > >>Which somehow, the Parkland medics forgot to mention.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Drs. Salyer, Geisecke ( confusing left with right) did *not* forget to
> mention it.
> > >
> > > OK, two medics out of about 20 who thought that the
> > > front/temporal was worth mentioning. I've clipped their WC
> > > testimony, below. I find it less than convincing. I certainly
> > > wouldn't want a doctor operating on me if he didn't know my left
> > > from my right.
> > >
> > > > You can suppose that the right front wound did not exist at
> > > > Parkland (in which case you have to show how the Z film was faked
> > >
> > > Don't know if/how it was faked; but certainly the Parkland medics
> > > were closer.
> > >
> > > >&how& when & where JFK's right front skull was knocked to bits
> - & why the docs
> > > > above hallucinated a wound there)
> > >
> > > There's a whole book on that.
> > >
> > > > or you can suppose that Jackie had
> > > > jammed up the gaping right front wound with the brains falling out of
> it
> > > > en route to Parkland, where it was largely (but not entirely)
> unnoticed
> > > > because the whole area was covered in scalp & plastered over with half
> > > > dried blood.
> > >
> > > I guess its known that she tried to stem the flow, but is there a
> > > reference to where on the skull she was doing this?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I think the latter is the more reasonable alternative, but if you want
> to
> > > > defend the former, I'm all ears.
> > >
> > > There is much I don't know or understand, for sure; but it's
> > > hard to discount the initial accounts of the people who were
> > > there, close up to the fresh evidence, first -- ie., the Parkland
> > > medics.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Paul Seaton
> > >
> > > Doc's testimony, below . . .
> > >
> > > regards,
> > > Ken West
> > >
> > > Dr. SALYER.
> > > . . .there were a lot of doctors standing around, and I didn't
> > > really get to observe the nature of the wound in the throat.
> > > . . .I came in on the left side of him and noticed that his
> > > major wound seemed to be in his right temporal area, at least
> > > from the point of view that I could see him, and other than
> > > that--nothing other than he did have a gaping scalp wound--
> > > cranial wound.
> > >
> > >
> > > Dr. GIESECKE. It seemed that from the vertex to the left ear, and
> > > from the browline to the occiput on the left-hand side of the
> > > head the cranium was entirely missing.
> > > Mr. SPECTER. Was that the left-hand side of the head, or the
> > > right-hand side of the head ?
> > > Dr. GIESECKE. I would say the left, but this is just my
> > > memory of it.
> > > Mr. SPECTER. That's your recollection ?
> > > Dr. GIESECKE. Right, like I say, I was there a very short
> > > time really.
> > > Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any other wound or bullet hole
> > > below the large area of missing skull ?
> > > Dr. GIESECKE. No; when I arrived the tracheotomy was in
> > > progress at that time and so I observed no other wound except the
> > > one on the cranium.
> > > Mr. SPECTER. On the cranium itself, did you observe another
> > > bullet hole below the portion of missing skull ?
> > > Dr. GIESECKE. No, sir; this was found later by Dr. Clark--I
> > > didn't see this.
> > > Mr. SPECTER. What makes you say that that hole was found
> > > later by Dr. Clark?
> > > Dr. GIESECKE. Well, this is hearsay--I wasn't there when
> > > they found it and I didn't notice it.
> > > Mr. SPECTER. Well, Dr. Clark didn't observe that hole.
> > > Dr. GIESECKE. Oh, he didn't--I'm sorry.
> > > Mr. SPECTER. From whom did you hear that the hole had been
> > > observed, if you recollect?
> > > Dr. GIESECKE-. Oh--I must be confused. We talked to so many
> > > people about these things--I don't remember.
> > > Mr. SPECTER. Now, with respect to the condition of the
> > > President's neck, what was its status at the time you first
> > > observed it?
> > > Dr. GIESECKE. Well, like I say, they were performing the
> > > tracheotomy, and I personally saw no wound in the neck other than
> > > the tracheotomy wound. As soon as the tracheotomy was completed,
> > > we removed the endotracheal tube and hooked the anesthesia
> > > machine to the tracheotomy tube and efforts were made then to put
> > > in a chest tube, an anterior chest tube.
> > > Mr. SPECTER. How long were you with President Kennedy
> > > altogether ?
> > > Dr. GIESECKE. Approximately 5 minutes.
> >
K Wind
2003-09-03 19:12:50 UTC
Permalink
"Ed Cage" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:***@posting.google.com...
> K Wind:
> Re: Your reference to:
> "You keep saying something about an
> accurate autopsy."<--K Wind quote.
>
> I'll call you KW, okay? So we don't confuse
> the 2 Kens.. I do the same w John F, Peter F, etc.
> That's why Dr. John McAdams is semi-forced to use
> his .John moniker btw..
> It helps my referrals.. Also I am aware some
> people are not always happy if they are associated
> w quotes others w same 1st name are attributed..
> (No direct ref to Ken West bc he seems to agree w
> you on everything.. ) Are you Ken West btw?

Why would you ask me that question?

>
> All I have said was the autopsy was "infinitely
> MORE accurate than PH" and the "autopsy was 180
> degrees MORE accurate than PH." That's the way
> 95% of JFK Heavyweights* see it, that's the way
> the HSCA & WC saw it, and I stand by that
> observation..
>
> Ed Sep30704
> *Henceforth: JFK Heavyweights (Including Peter F)
> are referred to by me as: "JFKH"

Are you telling me that you follow the crowd?

>From what I've read, the Dr.s at Parkland were far more experienced at
observing gunshot wounds than the autopsists. You do realize that Humes and
Boswell were pencil pushers, don't you? I agree with Cyril Wecht. Oswald
received a better autopsy than JFK.

Ken

>
>
>
> >"K Wind" <***@sandstorm.neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<0m85b.30111$***@twister.neo.rr.com>...
> > "Ed Cage" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:***@posting.google.com...
> > > Ken I may be criticized for repeating this but
> > > the PH Drs were concerned w urgent life-saving
> > > methods, Their agenda was 180 different from
> > > the more accurate autopsy acct..
> >
> > You keep saying something about an accurate autopsy. Are you aware that
> > Humes wasn't aware of the throat wound until the next day?
> >
> > Ken
> >
> >
> > > ALSO:
> > > 1) There were pictures & X-rays <--IMPORTANT &
> > > NOT FAKED.
> > > 2) Really only 1 PH Dr had the BOH wound acct..
> > > McClelland @ PH.. The other Drs harshly discredited
> > > and dismissed his acct..
> > > 3) The Z film was NOT FAKED EITHER.
> > >
> > > Ed Sep20518
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ken West <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<***@hotmail.com>...
> > > > Paul Seaton wrote:
> > > > > "Ken West" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:***@hotmail.com...
> > > > >
> > > > >>Paul Seaton wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>"Ken West" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > >>>news:***@hotmail.com...
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>Ed Cage wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>. . .snip . . .
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>>Anyone want to take a stab at WHY there was no
> > > > >>>>>frontal head shot EXIT wound?
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>Ed Cage aug311553
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>Would a frontal shot create, on exit,
> > > > >>>>"a large wound in his head, in the right rear area?"
> > > > >>>>as reported by Dr. Perry on the day of the event.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>The whole right side of his skull opened up.
> > > > >>>Bone fragments from the crown to the hairline were blown clean
away.
> > > > >>>The right rear was hanging loose.
> > . . . snip . . .
> > > > >>>It also created a massive hole in the FRONT of his head.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Which somehow, the Parkland medics forgot to mention.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Drs. Salyer, Geisecke ( confusing left with right) did *not*
forget to
> > mention it.
> > > >
> > > > OK, two medics out of about 20 who thought that the
> > > > front/temporal was worth mentioning. I've clipped their WC
> > > > testimony, below. I find it less than convincing. I certainly
> > > > wouldn't want a doctor operating on me if he didn't know my left
> > > > from my right.
> > > >
> > > > > You can suppose that the right front wound did not exist at
> > > > > Parkland (in which case you have to show how the Z film was faked
> > > >
> > > > Don't know if/how it was faked; but certainly the Parkland medics
> > > > were closer.
> > > >
> > > > >&how& when & where JFK's right front skull was knocked to bits
> > - & why the docs
> > > > > above hallucinated a wound there)
> > > >
> > > > There's a whole book on that.
> > > >
> > > > > or you can suppose that Jackie had
> > > > > jammed up the gaping right front wound with the brains falling out
of
> > it
> > > > > en route to Parkland, where it was largely (but not entirely)
> > unnoticed
> > > > > because the whole area was covered in scalp & plastered over with
half
> > > > > dried blood.
> > > >
> > > > I guess its known that she tried to stem the flow, but is there a
> > > > reference to where on the skull she was doing this?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think the latter is the more reasonable alternative, but if you
want
> > to
> > > > > defend the former, I'm all ears.
> > > >
> > > > There is much I don't know or understand, for sure; but it's
> > > > hard to discount the initial accounts of the people who were
> > > > there, close up to the fresh evidence, first -- ie., the Parkland
> > > > medics.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul Seaton
> > > >
> > > > Doc's testimony, below . . .
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > > Ken West
> > > >
> > > > Dr. SALYER.
> > > > . . .there were a lot of doctors standing around, and I didn't
> > > > really get to observe the nature of the wound in the throat.
> > > > . . .I came in on the left side of him and noticed that his
> > > > major wound seemed to be in his right temporal area, at least
> > > > from the point of view that I could see him, and other than
> > > > that--nothing other than he did have a gaping scalp wound--
> > > > cranial wound.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dr. GIESECKE. It seemed that from the vertex to the left ear, and
> > > > from the browline to the occiput on the left-hand side of the
> > > > head the cranium was entirely missing.
> > > > Mr. SPECTER. Was that the left-hand side of the head, or the
> > > > right-hand side of the head ?
> > > > Dr. GIESECKE. I would say the left, but this is just my
> > > > memory of it.
> > > > Mr. SPECTER. That's your recollection ?
> > > > Dr. GIESECKE. Right, like I say, I was there a very short
> > > > time really.
> > > > Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any other wound or bullet hole
> > > > below the large area of missing skull ?
> > > > Dr. GIESECKE. No; when I arrived the tracheotomy was in
> > > > progress at that time and so I observed no other wound except the
> > > > one on the cranium.
> > > > Mr. SPECTER. On the cranium itself, did you observe another
> > > > bullet hole below the portion of missing skull ?
> > > > Dr. GIESECKE. No, sir; this was found later by Dr. Clark--I
> > > > didn't see this.
> > > > Mr. SPECTER. What makes you say that that hole was found
> > > > later by Dr. Clark?
> > > > Dr. GIESECKE. Well, this is hearsay--I wasn't there when
> > > > they found it and I didn't notice it.
> > > > Mr. SPECTER. Well, Dr. Clark didn't observe that hole.
> > > > Dr. GIESECKE. Oh, he didn't--I'm sorry.
> > > > Mr. SPECTER. From whom did you hear that the hole had been
> > > > observed, if you recollect?
> > > > Dr. GIESECKE-. Oh--I must be confused. We talked to so many
> > > > people about these things--I don't remember.
> > > > Mr. SPECTER. Now, with respect to the condition of the
> > > > President's neck, what was its status at the time you first
> > > > observed it?
> > > > Dr. GIESECKE. Well, like I say, they were performing the
> > > > tracheotomy, and I personally saw no wound in the neck other than
> > > > the tracheotomy wound. As soon as the tracheotomy was completed,
> > > > we removed the endotracheal tube and hooked the anesthesia
> > > > machine to the tracheotomy tube and efforts were made then to put
> > > > in a chest tube, an anterior chest tube.
> > > > Mr. SPECTER. How long were you with President Kennedy
> > > > altogether ?
> > > > Dr. GIESECKE. Approximately 5 minutes.
> > >
>
Ed Cage
2003-09-04 11:51:20 UTC
Permalink
KW please accept my apology.. I honestly
meant nothing by asking you if you were
Ken West.. It was a meaningless Q just
fired as I typed & noticed the
similarities..
Some people (several) post from both
work & home and often wish to remain
anonymous from work..
I meant nothing by it.. I swear.

Best Regards, Ed Cage 972-964-3826
Sep40140




>"K Wind" <***@sandstorm.neo.rr.com> wrote in message news:<m7p5b.35178$***@twister.neo.rr.com>...
> "Ed Cage" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:***@posting.google.com...
> > K Wind:
> > Re: Your reference to:
> > "You keep saying something about an
> > accurate autopsy."<--K Wind quote.
> >
> > I'll call you KW, okay? So we don't confuse
> > the 2 Kens.. I do the same w John F, Peter F, etc.
> > That's why Dr. John McAdams is semi-forced to use
> > his .John moniker btw..
> > It helps my referrals.. Also I am aware some
> > people are not always happy if they are associated
> > w quotes others w same 1st name are attributed..
> > (No direct ref to Ken West bc he seems to agree w
> > you on everything.. ) Are you Ken West btw?
>
> Why would you ask me that question?
>
> >
> > All I have said was the autopsy was "infinitely
> > MORE accurate than PH" and the "autopsy was 180
> > degrees MORE accurate than PH." That's the way
> > 95% of JFK Heavyweights* see it, that's the way
> > the HSCA & WC saw it, and I stand by that
> > observation..
> >
> > Ed Sep30704
> > *Henceforth: JFK Heavyweights (Including Peter F)
> > are referred to by me as: "JFKH"
>
> Are you telling me that you follow the crowd?
>
> >From what I've read, the Dr.s at Parkland were far more experienced at
> observing gunshot wounds than the autopsists. You do realize that Humes and
> Boswell were pencil pushers, don't you? I agree with Cyril Wecht. Oswald
> received a better autopsy than JFK.
>
> Ken
>
> >
> >
> >
> > >"K Wind" <***@sandstorm.neo.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:<0m85b.30111$***@twister.neo.rr.com>...
> > > "Ed Cage" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > news:***@posting.google.com...
> > > > Ken I may be criticized for repeating this but
> > > > the PH Drs were concerned w urgent life-saving
> > > > methods, Their agenda was 180 different from
> > > > the more accurate autopsy acct..
> > >
> > > You keep saying something about an accurate autopsy. Are you aware that
> > > Humes wasn't aware of the throat wound until the next day?
> > >
> > > Ken
> > >
> > >
> > > > ALSO:
> > > > 1) There were pictures & X-rays <--IMPORTANT &
> > > > NOT FAKED.
> > > > 2) Really only 1 PH Dr had the BOH wound acct..
> > > > McClelland @ PH.. The other Drs harshly discredited
> > > > and dismissed his acct..
> > > > 3) The Z film was NOT FAKED EITHER.
> > > >
> > > > Ed Sep20518
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ken West <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<***@hotmail.com>...
> > > > > Paul Seaton wrote:
> > > > > > "Ken West" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:***@hotmail.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>Paul Seaton wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>"Ken West" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > >>>news:***@hotmail.com...
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>Ed Cage wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>. . .snip . . .
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>>Anyone want to take a stab at WHY there was no
> > > > > >>>>>frontal head shot EXIT wound?
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>Ed Cage aug311553
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>Would a frontal shot create, on exit,
> > > > > >>>>"a large wound in his head, in the right rear area?"
> > > > > >>>>as reported by Dr. Perry on the day of the event.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>The whole right side of his skull opened up.
> > > > > >>>Bone fragments from the crown to the hairline were blown clean
> away.
> > > > > >>>The right rear was hanging loose.
> . . . snip . . .
> > > > > >>>It also created a massive hole in the FRONT of his head.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>Which somehow, the Parkland medics forgot to mention.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Drs. Salyer, Geisecke ( confusing left with right) did *not*
> forget to
> mention it.
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, two medics out of about 20 who thought that the
> > > > > front/temporal was worth mentioning. I've clipped their WC
> > > > > testimony, below. I find it less than convincing. I certainly
> > > > > wouldn't want a doctor operating on me if he didn't know my left
> > > > > from my right.
> > > > >
> > > > > > You can suppose that the right front wound did not exist at
> > > > > > Parkland (in which case you have to show how the Z film was faked
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't know if/how it was faked; but certainly the Parkland medics
> > > > > were closer.
> > > > >
> > > > > >&how& when & where JFK's right front skull was knocked to bits
> - & why the docs
> > > > > > above hallucinated a wound there)
> > > > >
> > > > > There's a whole book on that.
> > > > >
> > > > > > or you can suppose that Jackie had
> > > > > > jammed up the gaping right front wound with the brains falling out
> of
> it
> > > > > > en route to Parkland, where it was largely (but not entirely)
> unnoticed
> > > > > > because the whole area was covered in scalp & plastered over with
> half
> > > > > > dried blood.
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess its known that she tried to stem the flow, but is there a
> > > > > reference to where on the skull she was doing this?
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think the latter is the more reasonable alternative, but if you
> want
> to
> > > > > > defend the former, I'm all ears.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is much I don't know or understand, for sure; but it's
> > > > > hard to discount the initial accounts of the people who were
> > > > > there, close up to the fresh evidence, first -- ie., the Parkland
> > > > > medics.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Paul Seaton
> > > > >
> > > > > Doc's testimony, below . . .
> > > > >
> > > > > regards,
> > > > > Ken West
> > > > >
> > > > > Dr. SALYER.
> > > > > . . .there were a lot of doctors standing around, and I didn't
> > > > > really get to observe the nature of the wound in the throat.
> > > > > . . .I came in on the left side of him and noticed that his
> > > > > major wound seemed to be in his right temporal area, at least
> > > > > from the point of view that I could see him, and other than
> > > > > that--nothing other than he did have a gaping scalp wound--
> > > > > cranial wound.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Dr. GIESECKE. It seemed that from the vertex to the left ear, and
> > > > > from the browline to the occiput on the left-hand side of the
> > > > > head the cranium was entirely missing.
> > > > > Mr. SPECTER. Was that the left-hand side of the head, or the
> > > > > right-hand side of the head ?
> > > > > Dr. GIESECKE. I would say the left, but this is just my
> > > > > memory of it.
> > > > > Mr. SPECTER. That's your recollection ?
> > > > > Dr. GIESECKE. Right, like I say, I was there a very short
> > > > > time really.
> > > > > Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any other wound or bullet hole
> > > > > below the large area of missing skull ?
> > > > > Dr. GIESECKE. No; when I arrived the tracheotomy was in
> > > > > progress at that time and so I observed no other wound except the
> > > > > one on the cranium.
> > > > > Mr. SPECTER. On the cranium itself, did you observe another
> > > > > bullet hole below the portion of missing skull ?
> > > > > Dr. GIESECKE. No, sir; this was found later by Dr. Clark--I
> > > > > didn't see this.
> > > > > Mr. SPECTER. What makes you say that that hole was found
> > > > > later by Dr. Clark?
> > > > > Dr. GIESECKE. Well, this is hearsay--I wasn't there when
> > > > > they found it and I didn't notice it.
> > > > > Mr. SPECTER. Well, Dr. Clark didn't observe that hole.
> > > > > Dr. GIESECKE. Oh, he didn't--I'm sorry.
> > > > > Mr. SPECTER. From whom did you hear that the hole had been
> > > > > observed, if you recollect?
> > > > > Dr. GIESECKE-. Oh--I must be confused. We talked to so many
> > > > > people about these things--I don't remember.
> > > > > Mr. SPECTER. Now, with respect to the condition of the
> > > > > President's neck, what was its status at the time you first
> > > > > observed it?
> > > > > Dr. GIESECKE. Well, like I say, they were performing the
> > > > > tracheotomy, and I personally saw no wound in the neck other than
> > > > > the tracheotomy wound. As soon as the tracheotomy was completed,
> > > > > we removed the endotracheal tube and hooked the anesthesia
> > > > > machine to the tracheotomy tube and efforts were made then to put
> > > > > in a chest tube, an anterior chest tube.
> > > > > Mr. SPECTER. How long were you with President Kennedy
> > > > > altogether ?
> > > > > Dr. GIESECKE. Approximately 5 minutes.
> > > >
> >
K Wind
2003-09-04 14:58:01 UTC
Permalink
"Ed Cage" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:***@posting.google.com...
> KW please accept my apology.. I honestly
> meant nothing by asking you if you were
> Ken West.. It was a meaningless Q just
> fired as I typed & noticed the
> similarities..
> Some people (several) post from both
> work & home and often wish to remain
> anonymous from work..
> I meant nothing by it.. I swear.
>
> Best Regards, Ed Cage 972-964-3826
> Sep40140

It doesn't bother me that you asked the question. I just wanted to know why
you asked it.

Ken


>
>
>
>
> >"K Wind" <***@sandstorm.neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<m7p5b.35178$***@twister.neo.rr.com>...
> > "Ed Cage" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:***@posting.google.com...
> > > K Wind:
> > > Re: Your reference to:
> > > "You keep saying something about an
> > > accurate autopsy."<--K Wind quote.
> > >
> > > I'll call you KW, okay? So we don't confuse
> > > the 2 Kens.. I do the same w John F, Peter F, etc.
> > > That's why Dr. John McAdams is semi-forced to use
> > > his .John moniker btw..
> > > It helps my referrals.. Also I am aware some
> > > people are not always happy if they are associated
> > > w quotes others w same 1st name are attributed..
> > > (No direct ref to Ken West bc he seems to agree w
> > > you on everything.. ) Are you Ken West btw?
> >
> > Why would you ask me that question?
> >
> > >
> > > All I have said was the autopsy was "infinitely
> > > MORE accurate than PH" and the "autopsy was 180
> > > degrees MORE accurate than PH." That's the way
> > > 95% of JFK Heavyweights* see it, that's the way
> > > the HSCA & WC saw it, and I stand by that
> > > observation..
> > >
> > > Ed Sep30704
> > > *Henceforth: JFK Heavyweights (Including Peter F)
> > > are referred to by me as: "JFKH"
> >
> > Are you telling me that you follow the crowd?
> >
> > >From what I've read, the Dr.s at Parkland were far more experienced at
> > observing gunshot wounds than the autopsists. You do realize that Humes
and
> > Boswell were pencil pushers, don't you? I agree with Cyril Wecht. Oswald
> > received a better autopsy than JFK.
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >"K Wind" <***@sandstorm.neo.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:<0m85b.30111$***@twister.neo.rr.com>...
> > > > "Ed Cage" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:***@posting.google.com...
> > > > > Ken I may be criticized for repeating this but
> > > > > the PH Drs were concerned w urgent life-saving
> > > > > methods, Their agenda was 180 different from
> > > > > the more accurate autopsy acct..
> > > >
> > > > You keep saying something about an accurate autopsy. Are you aware
that
> > > > Humes wasn't aware of the throat wound until the next day?
> > > >
> > > > Ken
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > ALSO:
> > > > > 1) There were pictures & X-rays <--IMPORTANT &
> > > > > NOT FAKED.
> > > > > 2) Really only 1 PH Dr had the BOH wound acct..
> > > > > McClelland @ PH.. The other Drs harshly discredited
> > > > > and dismissed his acct..
> > > > > 3) The Z film was NOT FAKED EITHER.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ed Sep20518
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ken West <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<***@hotmail.com>...
> > > > > > Paul Seaton wrote:
> > > > > > > "Ken West" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:***@hotmail.com...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>Paul Seaton wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>"Ken West" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > >>>news:***@hotmail.com...
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>Ed Cage wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>. . .snip . . .
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>>>Anyone want to take a stab at WHY there was no
> > > > > > >>>>>frontal head shot EXIT wound?
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>Ed Cage aug311553
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>Would a frontal shot create, on exit,
> > > > > > >>>>"a large wound in his head, in the right rear area?"
> > > > > > >>>>as reported by Dr. Perry on the day of the event.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>The whole right side of his skull opened up.
> > > > > > >>>Bone fragments from the crown to the hairline were blown
clean
> > away.
> > > > > > >>>The right rear was hanging loose.
> > . . . snip . . .
> > > > > > >>>It also created a massive hole in the FRONT of his head.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>Which somehow, the Parkland medics forgot to mention.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Drs. Salyer, Geisecke ( confusing left with right) did *not*
> > forget to
> > mention it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OK, two medics out of about 20 who thought that the
> > > > > > front/temporal was worth mentioning. I've clipped their WC
> > > > > > testimony, below. I find it less than convincing. I certainly
> > > > > > wouldn't want a doctor operating on me if he didn't know my left
> > > > > > from my right.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > You can suppose that the right front wound did not exist at
> > > > > > > Parkland (in which case you have to show how the Z film was
faked
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Don't know if/how it was faked; but certainly the Parkland
medics
> > > > > > were closer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >&how& when & where JFK's right front skull was knocked to bits
> > - & why the docs
> > > > > > > above hallucinated a wound there)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There's a whole book on that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > or you can suppose that Jackie had
> > > > > > > jammed up the gaping right front wound with the brains falling
out
> > of
> > it
> > > > > > > en route to Parkland, where it was largely (but not entirely)
> > unnoticed
> > > > > > > because the whole area was covered in scalp & plastered over
with
> > half
> > > > > > > dried blood.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I guess its known that she tried to stem the flow, but is there
a
> > > > > > reference to where on the skull she was doing this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think the latter is the more reasonable alternative, but if
you
> > want
> > to
> > > > > > > defend the former, I'm all ears.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is much I don't know or understand, for sure; but it's
> > > > > > hard to discount the initial accounts of the people who were
> > > > > > there, close up to the fresh evidence, first -- ie., the
Parkland
> > > > > > medics.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Paul Seaton
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Doc's testimony, below . . .
> > > > > >
> > > > > > regards,
> > > > > > Ken West
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dr. SALYER.
> > > > > > . . .there were a lot of doctors standing around, and I didn't
> > > > > > really get to observe the nature of the wound in the throat.
> > > > > > . . .I came in on the left side of him and noticed that his
> > > > > > major wound seemed to be in his right temporal area, at least
> > > > > > from the point of view that I could see him, and other than
> > > > > > that--nothing other than he did have a gaping scalp wound--
> > > > > > cranial wound.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dr. GIESECKE. It seemed that from the vertex to the left ear,
and
> > > > > > from the browline to the occiput on the left-hand side of the
> > > > > > head the cranium was entirely missing.
> > > > > > Mr. SPECTER. Was that the left-hand side of the head, or
the
> > > > > > right-hand side of the head ?
> > > > > > Dr. GIESECKE. I would say the left, but this is just my
> > > > > > memory of it.
> > > > > > Mr. SPECTER. That's your recollection ?
> > > > > > Dr. GIESECKE. Right, like I say, I was there a very short
> > > > > > time really.
> > > > > > Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any other wound or bullet hole
> > > > > > below the large area of missing skull ?
> > > > > > Dr. GIESECKE. No; when I arrived the tracheotomy was in
> > > > > > progress at that time and so I observed no other wound except
the
> > > > > > one on the cranium.
> > > > > > Mr. SPECTER. On the cranium itself, did you observe another
> > > > > > bullet hole below the portion of missing skull ?
> > > > > > Dr. GIESECKE. No, sir; this was found later by Dr. Clark--I
> > > > > > didn't see this.
> > > > > > Mr. SPECTER. What makes you say that that hole was found
> > > > > > later by Dr. Clark?
> > > > > > Dr. GIESECKE. Well, this is hearsay--I wasn't there when
> > > > > > they found it and I didn't notice it.
> > > > > > Mr. SPECTER. Well, Dr. Clark didn't observe that hole.
> > > > > > Dr. GIESECKE. Oh, he didn't--I'm sorry.
> > > > > > Mr. SPECTER. From whom did you hear that the hole had been
> > > > > > observed, if you recollect?
> > > > > > Dr. GIESECKE-. Oh--I must be confused. We talked to so many
> > > > > > people about these things--I don't remember.
> > > > > > Mr. SPECTER. Now, with respect to the condition of the
> > > > > > President's neck, what was its status at the time you first
> > > > > > observed it?
> > > > > > Dr. GIESECKE. Well, like I say, they were performing the
> > > > > > tracheotomy, and I personally saw no wound in the neck other
than
> > > > > > the tracheotomy wound. As soon as the tracheotomy was completed,
> > > > > > we removed the endotracheal tube and hooked the anesthesia
> > > > > > machine to the tracheotomy tube and efforts were made then to
put
> > > > > > in a chest tube, an anterior chest tube.
> > > > > > Mr. SPECTER. How long were you with President Kennedy
> > > > > > altogether ?
> > > > > > Dr. GIESECKE. Approximately 5 minutes.
> > > > >
> > >
>
Barb Junkkarinen
2003-09-03 22:27:19 UTC
Permalink
"Ed Cage" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:***@posting.google.com...
> K Wind:
> Re: Your reference to:
> "You keep saying something about an
> accurate autopsy."<--K Wind quote.
>
> I'll call you KW, okay? So we don't confuse
> the 2 Kens.. I do the same w John F, Peter F, etc.
> That's why Dr. John McAdams is semi-forced to use
> his .John moniker btw..
> It helps my referrals.. Also I am aware some
> people are not always happy if they are associated
> w quotes others w same 1st name are attributed..
> (No direct ref to Ken West bc he seems to agree w
> you on everything.. ) Are you Ken West btw?
>
> All I have said was the autopsy was "infinitely
> MORE accurate than PH"

It's a surprise to you that an autopsy would be more detailed and more
conclusive that observations made during assess & treatment in a trauma
room? An autopsy is comprehensive, no duh that it would be more "accurate"
overall ..... but that of course does not negate the observations documented
by the Parkland personnel, in fact, that accurate autopsy you're always
crowing about **confirmed** what Parkland reported about a severe defect in
the right posterior of the head.

You'll ignore this again as usual, right?

>and the "autopsy was 180
> degrees MORE accurate than PH." That's the way
> 95% of JFK Heavyweights* see it, that's the way
> the HSCA & WC saw it, and I stand by that
> observation..

You're a hoot. Reread my above paragraph. And as for your JFKHs .... you do
realize, don't you that most of them do not think the autopsy was accurate
at all as regards the head wound? Seems they disagree with you, Ed.

>
> Ed Sep30704
> *Henceforth: JFK Heavyweights (Including Peter F)
> are referred to by me as: "JFKH"

And they are *thrilled* I am sure.<g>
Robert Harris
2003-09-03 19:13:28 UTC
Permalink
On 2 Sep 2003 10:11:54 -0500, ***@earthlink.net (Ed Cage) wrote:

>Ken I may be criticized for repeating this but
>the PH Drs were concerned w urgent life-saving
>methods, Their agenda was 180 different from
>the more accurate autopsy acct..

Yoohoo!!

Earth to Ed Cage.

For the umpteenth time, LOOK AT BOSWELL'S drawing, er DRAWING!

It clearly shows that the upper rear of the head was missing,
including the area where the HSCA docs tried to place an entry wound.
Boswell said Humes got his 13 cm measurement, only after a 4 cm piece,
which was obviously, blown out of the head, was flown back into
Bethesda and put back, when the head was reconstructed.

Besides that 4 cm piece, Ed, and lot of blood and tissue was blown out
as well, more than 20 feet to Kennedy's left, and against the wind.

That empty spot in the back of the head, Ed, where skull used to be,
is the EXIT WOUND.

Or do you REALLY think that shot entered in the cowlick and then blew
out the cowlick, with all that gunk being blown 20 feet in the
OPPOSITE direction of the entering bullet????

One other question Ed!

..do you REALLY think that shot entered in the cowlick and then blew
out the cowlick, with all that gunk being blown 20 feet in the
OPPOSITE direction of the entering bullet????

If you can't handle both those questions, Ed, at least do one of them!

And finally Ed, why was the BOH still in visibly perfect condition, at
Z317, even after the explosion had subsided??






Robert Harris




>ALSO:
>1) There were pictures & X-rays <--IMPORTANT &
>NOT FAKED.
>2) Really only 1 PH Dr had the BOH wound acct..
>McClelland @ PH.. The other Drs harshly discredited
>and dismissed his acct..
>3) The Z film was NOT FAKED EITHER.
>
>Ed Sep20518
>
>
>
>
>
>Ken West <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<***@hotmail.com>...
>> Paul Seaton wrote:
>> > "Ken West" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:***@hotmail.com...
>> >
>> >>Paul Seaton wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>"Ken West" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>>news:***@hotmail.com...
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>Ed Cage wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>. . .snip . . .
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>>>Anyone want to take a stab at WHY there was no
>> >>>>>frontal head shot EXIT wound?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Ed Cage aug311553
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Would a frontal shot create, on exit,
>> >>>>"a large wound in his head, in the right rear area?"
>> >>>>as reported by Dr. Perry on the day of the event.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>The whole right side of his skull opened up.
>> >>>Bone fragments from the crown to the hairline were blown clean away.
>> >>>The right rear was hanging loose.
>> . . . snip . . .
>> >>>It also created a massive hole in the FRONT of his head.
>> >>
>> >>Which somehow, the Parkland medics forgot to mention.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Drs. Salyer, Geisecke ( confusing left with right) did *not* forget to > mention it.
>>
>> OK, two medics out of about 20 who thought that the
>> front/temporal was worth mentioning. I've clipped their WC
>> testimony, below. I find it less than convincing. I certainly
>> wouldn't want a doctor operating on me if he didn't know my left
>> from my right.
>>
>> > You can suppose that the right front wound did not exist at
>> > Parkland (in which case you have to show how the Z film was faked
>>
>> Don't know if/how it was faked; but certainly the Parkland medics
>> were closer.
>>
>> >&how& when & where JFK's right front skull was knocked to bits
>> - & why the docs
>> > above hallucinated a wound there)
>>
>> There's a whole book on that.
>>
>> > or you can suppose that Jackie had
>> > jammed up the gaping right front wound with the brains falling out of it
>> > en route to Parkland, where it was largely (but not entirely) unnoticed
>> > because the whole area was covered in scalp & plastered over with half
>> > dried blood.
>>
>> I guess its known that she tried to stem the flow, but is there a
>> reference to where on the skull she was doing this?
>>
>> >
>> > I think the latter is the more reasonable alternative, but if you want to
>> > defend the former, I'm all ears.
>>
>> There is much I don't know or understand, for sure; but it's
>> hard to discount the initial accounts of the people who were
>> there, close up to the fresh evidence, first -- ie., the Parkland
>> medics.
>>
>> >
>> > Paul Seaton
>>
>> Doc's testimony, below . . .
>>
>> regards,
>> Ken West
>>
>> Dr. SALYER.
>> . . .there were a lot of doctors standing around, and I didn't
>> really get to observe the nature of the wound in the throat.
>> . . .I came in on the left side of him and noticed that his
>> major wound seemed to be in his right temporal area, at least
>> from the point of view that I could see him, and other than
>> that--nothing other than he did have a gaping scalp wound--
>> cranial wound.
>>
>>
>> Dr. GIESECKE. It seemed that from the vertex to the left ear, and
>> from the browline to the occiput on the left-hand side of the
>> head the cranium was entirely missing.
>> Mr. SPECTER. Was that the left-hand side of the head, or the
>> right-hand side of the head ?
>> Dr. GIESECKE. I would say the left, but this is just my
>> memory of it.
>> Mr. SPECTER. That's your recollection ?
>> Dr. GIESECKE. Right, like I say, I was there a very short
>> time really.
>> Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any other wound or bullet hole
>> below the large area of missing skull ?
>> Dr. GIESECKE. No; when I arrived the tracheotomy was in
>> progress at that time and so I observed no other wound except the
>> one on the cranium.
>> Mr. SPECTER. On the cranium itself, did you observe another
>> bullet hole below the portion of missing skull ?
>> Dr. GIESECKE. No, sir; this was found later by Dr. Clark--I
>> didn't see this.
>> Mr. SPECTER. What makes you say that that hole was found
>> later by Dr. Clark?
>> Dr. GIESECKE. Well, this is hearsay--I wasn't there when
>> they found it and I didn't notice it.
>> Mr. SPECTER. Well, Dr. Clark didn't observe that hole.
>> Dr. GIESECKE. Oh, he didn't--I'm sorry.
>> Mr. SPECTER. From whom did you hear that the hole had been
>> observed, if you recollect?
>> Dr. GIESECKE-. Oh--I must be confused. We talked to so many
>> people about these things--I don't remember.
>> Mr. SPECTER. Now, with respect to the condition of the
>> President's neck, what was its status at the time you first
>> observed it?
>> Dr. GIESECKE. Well, like I say, they were performing the
>> tracheotomy, and I personally saw no wound in the neck other than
>> the tracheotomy wound. As soon as the tracheotomy was completed,
>> we removed the endotracheal tube and hooked the anesthesia
>> machine to the tracheotomy tube and efforts were made then to put
>> in a chest tube, an anterior chest tube.
>> Mr. SPECTER. How long were you with President Kennedy
>> altogether ?
>> Dr. GIESECKE. Approximately 5 minutes.
>
Ed Cage
2003-09-04 14:55:29 UTC
Permalink
HI BOB!
I W=I=L=L address your Qs and I look forward
to an open exchange of info w you.. See my
post to Ken West.. I gave you some nice
compliments..
"I'm just tooo tired tonite*" Bob.. I've
been drinking 3 layer Zombies since noon and
I gotta have my shine-kit regalia all set up
for my Car Wash gig at 9AM..

Cya Thursday nite Bob..

mR ;~}}}<--Triple chin eD Sep40145
* I've been married 32 yrs Bob.. This is a
line I have HEARD before..




>***@yahoo.com (Robert Harris) wrote in message news:<***@News.CIS.DFN.DE>...
> On 2 Sep 2003 10:11:54 -0500, ***@earthlink.net (Ed Cage) wrote:
>
> >Ken I may be criticized for repeating this but
> >the PH Drs were concerned w urgent life-saving
> >methods, Their agenda was 180 different from
> >the more accurate autopsy acct..
>
> Yoohoo!!
>
> Earth to Ed Cage.
>
> For the umpteenth time, LOOK AT BOSWELL'S drawing, er DRAWING!
>
> It clearly shows that the upper rear of the head was missing,
> including the area where the HSCA docs tried to place an entry wound.
> Boswell said Humes got his 13 cm measurement, only after a 4 cm piece,
> which was obviously, blown out of the head, was flown back into
> Bethesda and put back, when the head was reconstructed.
>
> Besides that 4 cm piece, Ed, and lot of blood and tissue was blown out
> as well, more than 20 feet to Kennedy's left, and against the wind.
>
> That empty spot in the back of the head, Ed, where skull used to be,
> is the EXIT WOUND.
>
> Or do you REALLY think that shot entered in the cowlick and then blew
> out the cowlick, with all that gunk being blown 20 feet in the
> OPPOSITE direction of the entering bullet????
>
> One other question Ed!
>
> ..do you REALLY think that shot entered in the cowlick and then blew
> out the cowlick, with all that gunk being blown 20 feet in the
> OPPOSITE direction of the entering bullet????
>
> If you can't handle both those questions, Ed, at least do one of them!
>
> And finally Ed, why was the BOH still in visibly perfect condition, at
> Z317, even after the explosion had subsided??
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
>
>
>
> >ALSO:
> >1) There were pictures & X-rays <--IMPORTANT &
> >NOT FAKED.
> >2) Really only 1 PH Dr had the BOH wound acct..
> >McClelland @ PH.. The other Drs harshly discredited
> >and dismissed his acct..
> >3) The Z film was NOT FAKED EITHER.
> >
> >Ed Sep20518
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Ken West <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<***@hotmail.com>...
> >> Paul Seaton wrote:
> >> > "Ken West" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:***@hotmail.com...
> >> >
> >> >>Paul Seaton wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>"Ken West" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >>>news:***@hotmail.com...
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>Ed Cage wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>. . .snip . . .
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>>>Anyone want to take a stab at WHY there was no
> >> >>>>>frontal head shot EXIT wound?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>Ed Cage aug311553
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>Would a frontal shot create, on exit,
> >> >>>>"a large wound in his head, in the right rear area?"
> >> >>>>as reported by Dr. Perry on the day of the event.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>The whole right side of his skull opened up.
> >> >>>Bone fragments from the crown to the hairline were blown clean away.
> >> >>>The right rear was hanging loose.
> . . . snip . . .
> >> >>>It also created a massive hole in the FRONT of his head.
> >> >>
> >> >>Which somehow, the Parkland medics forgot to mention.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Drs. Salyer, Geisecke ( confusing left with right) did *not* forget to > mention it.
> >>
> >> OK, two medics out of about 20 who thought that the
> >> front/temporal was worth mentioning. I've clipped their WC
> >> testimony, below. I find it less than convincing. I certainly
> >> wouldn't want a doctor operating on me if he didn't know my left
> >> from my right.
> >>
> >> > You can suppose that the right front wound did not exist at
> >> > Parkland (in which case you have to show how the Z film was faked
> >>
> >> Don't know if/how it was faked; but certainly the Parkland medics
> >> were closer.
> >>
> >> >&how& when & where JFK's right front skull was knocked to bits
> - & why the docs
> >> > above hallucinated a wound there)
> >>
> >> There's a whole book on that.
> >>
> >> > or you can suppose that Jackie had
> >> > jammed up the gaping right front wound with the brains falling out of it
> >> > en route to Parkland, where it was largely (but not entirely) unnoticed
> >> > because the whole area was covered in scalp & plastered over with half
> >> > dried blood.
> >>
> >> I guess its known that she tried to stem the flow, but is there a
> >> reference to where on the skull she was doing this?
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I think the latter is the more reasonable alternative, but if you want to
> >> > defend the former, I'm all ears.
> >>
> >> There is much I don't know or understand, for sure; but it's
> >> hard to discount the initial accounts of the people who were
> >> there, close up to the fresh evidence, first -- ie., the Parkland
> >> medics.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Paul Seaton
> >>
> >> Doc's testimony, below . . .
> >>
> >> regards,
> >> Ken West
> >>
> >> Dr. SALYER.
> >> . . .there were a lot of doctors standing around, and I didn't
> >> really get to observe the nature of the wound in the throat.
> >> . . .I came in on the left side of him and noticed that his
> >> major wound seemed to be in his right temporal area, at least
> >> from the point of view that I could see him, and other than
> >> that--nothing other than he did have a gaping scalp wound--
> >> cranial wound.
> >>
> >>
> >> Dr. GIESECKE. It seemed that from the vertex to the left ear, and
> >> from the browline to the occiput on the left-hand side of the
> >> head the cranium was entirely missing.
> >> Mr. SPECTER. Was that the left-hand side of the head, or the
> >> right-hand side of the head ?
> >> Dr. GIESECKE. I would say the left, but this is just my
> >> memory of it.
> >> Mr. SPECTER. That's your recollection ?
> >> Dr. GIESECKE. Right, like I say, I was there a very short
> >> time really.
> >> Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any other wound or bullet hole
> >> below the large area of missing skull ?
> >> Dr. GIESECKE. No; when I arrived the tracheotomy was in
> >> progress at that time and so I observed no other wound except the
> >> one on the cranium.
> >> Mr. SPECTER. On the cranium itself, did you observe another
> >> bullet hole below the portion of missing skull ?
> >> Dr. GIESECKE. No, sir; this was found later by Dr. Clark--I
> >> didn't see this.
> >> Mr. SPECTER. What makes you say that that hole was found
> >> later by Dr. Clark?
> >> Dr. GIESECKE. Well, this is hearsay--I wasn't there when
> >> they found it and I didn't notice it.
> >> Mr. SPECTER. Well, Dr. Clark didn't observe that hole.
> >> Dr. GIESECKE. Oh, he didn't--I'm sorry.
> >> Mr. SPECTER. From whom did you hear that the hole had been
> >> observed, if you recollect?
> >> Dr. GIESECKE-. Oh--I must be confused. We talked to so many
> >> people about these things--I don't remember.
> >> Mr. SPECTER. Now, with respect to the condition of the
> >> President's neck, what was its status at the time you first
> >> observed it?
> >> Dr. GIESECKE. Well, like I say, they were performing the
> >> tracheotomy, and I personally saw no wound in the neck other than
> >> the tracheotomy wound. As soon as the tracheotomy was completed,
> >> we removed the endotracheal tube and hooked the anesthesia
> >> machine to the tracheotomy tube and efforts were made then to put
> >> in a chest tube, an anterior chest tube.
> >> Mr. SPECTER. How long were you with President Kennedy
> >> altogether ?
> >> Dr. GIESECKE. Approximately 5 minutes.
> >
Ed Cage
2003-09-05 04:14:22 UTC
Permalink
THanx for your veteran input Bob..
You said (Partial quote):============Bob ON==============
"do you REALLY think that shot entered in the cowlick and
then blew out the cowlick, with all that gunk being blown
20 feet in the OPPOSITE direction of the entering bullet?"
==========================================================
No I don't think any "gunk was blown in the OPPOSITE
direction of the entering bullet." I believe the rd entered
in the BOH and exited in the upper rt temporal and blew out
matter, tissue in the SAME direction as the entering bullet.

=======================Bob ON==============================
"And finally Ed, why was the BOH still in visibly perfect
condition, at Z317, even after the explosion had subsided?"
===========================================================
Bob I believe the explosion went forward and upward from the
front rt. top of the head.. That's what the Z film shows &
P*R*O*V*E*S in fact.. I believe the Z film is unaltered.. I
believe the reason it shows a frontal explosion is bc the rd
entered from the rear and EXITED thru the upper rt. front.
Further I believe that although the BOH skull was shattered
by the entering rd, it left only a small penetration hole &the
shattered part was held together by the skin, scalp, hair, on
the BOH. I also believe the X-rays and the autopsy photos and
the Autopsy itself, although FLAWED, nonetheless was basically
accurate enough to establish a rear entrance and a frontal
EXIT. And that's why the Z film showed just that.

Ed Cage Sep42026



>***@yahoo.com (Robert Harris) wrote in message news:<***@News.CIS.DFN.DE>...
> On 2 Sep 2003 10:11:54 -0500, ***@earthlink.net (Ed Cage) wrote:
>
> >Ken I may be criticized for repeating this but
> >the PH Drs were concerned w urgent life-saving
> >methods, Their agenda was 180 different from
> >the more accurate autopsy acct..
>
> Yoohoo!!
>
> Earth to Ed Cage.
>
> For the umpteenth time, LOOK AT BOSWELL'S drawing, er DRAWING!
>
> It clearly shows that the upper rear of the head was missing,
> including the area where the HSCA docs tried to place an entry wound.
> Boswell said Humes got his 13 cm measurement, only after a 4 cm piece,
> which was obviously, blown out of the head, was flown back into
> Bethesda and put back, when the head was reconstructed.
>
> Besides that 4 cm piece, Ed, and lot of blood and tissue was blown out
> as well, more than 20 feet to Kennedy's left, and against the wind.
>
> That empty spot in the back of the head, Ed, where skull used to be,
> is the EXIT WOUND.
>
> Or do you REALLY think that shot entered in the cowlick and then blew
> out the cowlick, with all that gunk being blown 20 feet in the
> OPPOSITE direction of the entering bullet????
>
> One other question Ed!
>
> ..do you REALLY think that shot entered in the cowlick and then blew
> out the cowlick, with all that gunk being blown 20 feet in the
> OPPOSITE direction of the entering bullet????
>
> If you can't handle both those questions, Ed, at least do one of them!
>
> And finally Ed, why was the BOH still in visibly perfect condition, at
> Z317, even after the explosion had subsided??
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
>
>
>
> >ALSO:
> >1) There were pictures & X-rays <--IMPORTANT &
> >NOT FAKED.
> >2) Really only 1 PH Dr had the BOH wound acct..
> >McClelland @ PH.. The other Drs harshly discredited
> >and dismissed his acct..
> >3) The Z film was NOT FAKED EITHER.
> >
> >Ed Sep20518
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Ken West <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<***@hotmail.com>...
> >> Paul Seaton wrote:
> >> > "Ken West" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:***@hotmail.com...
> >> >
> >> >>Paul Seaton wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>"Ken West" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >>>news:***@hotmail.com...
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>Ed Cage wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>. . .snip . . .
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>>>Anyone want to take a stab at WHY there was no
> >> >>>>>frontal head shot EXIT wound?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>Ed Cage aug311553
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>Would a frontal shot create, on exit,
> >> >>>>"a large wound in his head, in the right rear area?"
> >> >>>>as reported by Dr. Perry on the day of the event.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>The whole right side of his skull opened up.
> >> >>>Bone fragments from the crown to the hairline were blown clean away.
> >> >>>The right rear was hanging loose.
> . . . snip . . .
> >> >>>It also created a massive hole in the FRONT of his head.
> >> >>
> >> >>Which somehow, the Parkland medics forgot to mention.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Drs. Salyer, Geisecke ( confusing left with right) did *not* forget to > mention it.
> >>
> >> OK, two medics out of about 20 who thought that the
> >> front/temporal was worth mentioning. I've clipped their WC
> >> testimony, below. I find it less than convincing. I certainly
> >> wouldn't want a doctor operating on me if he didn't know my left
> >> from my right.
> >>
> >> > You can suppose that the right front wound did not exist at
> >> > Parkland (in which case you have to show how the Z film was faked
> >>
> >> Don't know if/how it was faked; but certainly the Parkland medics
> >> were closer.
> >>
> >> >&how& when & where JFK's right front skull was knocked to bits
> - & why the docs
> >> > above hallucinated a wound there)
> >>
> >> There's a whole book on that.
> >>
> >> > or you can suppose that Jackie had
> >> > jammed up the gaping right front wound with the brains falling out of it
> >> > en route to Parkland, where it was largely (but not entirely) unnoticed
> >> > because the whole area was covered in scalp & plastered over with half
> >> > dried blood.
> >>
> >> I guess its known that she tried to stem the flow, but is there a
> >> reference to where on the skull she was doing this?
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I think the latter is the more reasonable alternative, but if you want to
> >> > defend the former, I'm all ears.
> >>
> >> There is much I don't know or understand, for sure; but it's
> >> hard to discount the initial accounts of the people who were
> >> there, close up to the fresh evidence, first -- ie., the Parkland
> >> medics.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Paul Seaton
> >>
> >> Doc's testimony, below . . .
> >>
> >> regards,
> >> Ken West
> >>
> >> Dr. SALYER.
> >> . . .there were a lot of doctors standing around, and I didn't
> >> really get to observe the nature of the wound in the throat.
> >> . . .I came in on the left side of him and noticed that his
> >> major wound seemed to be in his right temporal area, at least
> >> from the point of view that I could see him, and other than
> >> that--nothing other than he did have a gaping scalp wound--
> >> cranial wound.
> >>
> >>
> >> Dr. GIESECKE. It seemed that from the vertex to the left ear, and
> >> from the browline to the occiput on the left-hand side of the
> >> head the cranium was entirely missing.
> >> Mr. SPECTER. Was that the left-hand side of the head, or the
> >> right-hand side of the head ?
> >> Dr. GIESECKE. I would say the left, but this is just my
> >> memory of it.
> >> Mr. SPECTER. That's your recollection ?
> >> Dr. GIESECKE. Right, like I say, I was there a very short
> >> time really.
> >> Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any other wound or bullet hole
> >> below the large area of missing skull ?
> >> Dr. GIESECKE. No; when I arrived the tracheotomy was in
> >> progress at that time and so I observed no other wound except the
> >> one on the cranium.
> >> Mr. SPECTER. On the cranium itself, did you observe another
> >> bullet hole below the portion of missing skull ?
> >> Dr. GIESECKE. No, sir; this was found later by Dr. Clark--I
> >> didn't see this.
> >> Mr. SPECTER. What makes you say that that hole was found
> >> later by Dr. Clark?
> >> Dr. GIESECKE. Well, this is hearsay--I wasn't there when
> >> they found it and I didn't notice it.
> >> Mr. SPECTER. Well, Dr. Clark didn't observe that hole.
> >> Dr. GIESECKE. Oh, he didn't--I'm sorry.
> >> Mr. SPECTER. From whom did you hear that the hole had been
> >> observed, if you recollect?
> >> Dr. GIESECKE-. Oh--I must be confused. We talked to so many
> >> people about these things--I don't remember.
> >> Mr. SPECTER. Now, with respect to the condition of the
> >> President's neck, what was its status at the time you first
> >> observed it?
> >> Dr. GIESECKE. Well, like I say, they were performing the
> >> tracheotomy, and I personally saw no wound in the neck other than
> >> the tracheotomy wound. As soon as the tracheotomy was completed,
> >> we removed the endotracheal tube and hooked the anesthesia
> >> machine to the tracheotomy tube and efforts were made then to put
> >> in a chest tube, an anterior chest tube.
> >> Mr. SPECTER. How long were you with President Kennedy
> >> altogether ?
> >> Dr. GIESECKE. Approximately 5 minutes.
> >
John Hill
2003-09-05 19:32:00 UTC
Permalink
Ed Cage <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:***@posting.google.com...
> THanx for your veteran input Bob..
> You said (Partial quote):============Bob ON==============
> "do you REALLY think that shot entered in the cowlick and
> then blew out the cowlick, with all that gunk being blown
> 20 feet in the OPPOSITE direction of the entering bullet?"
> ==========================================================
> No I don't think any "gunk was blown in the OPPOSITE
> direction of the entering bullet." I believe the rd entered
> in the BOH and exited in the upper rt temporal and blew out
> matter, tissue in the SAME direction as the entering bullet.
>
> =======================Bob ON==============================
> "And finally Ed, why was the BOH still in visibly perfect
> condition, at Z317, even after the explosion had subsided?"
> ===========================================================
> Bob I believe the explosion went forward and upward from the
> front rt. top of the head.. That's what the Z film shows &
> P*R*O*V*E*S in fact.. I believe the Z film is unaltered.. I
> believe the reason it shows a frontal explosion is bc the rd
> entered from the rear and EXITED thru the upper rt. front.
> Further I believe that although the BOH skull was shattered
> by the entering rd, it left only a small penetration hole &the
> shattered part was held together by the skin, scalp, hair, on
> the BOH. I also believe the X-rays and the autopsy photos and
> the Autopsy itself, although FLAWED, nonetheless was basically
> accurate enough to establish a rear entrance and a frontal
> EXIT. And that's why the Z film showed just that.

Not everyone who says there was a large wound in the BOH is saying it was an
EXIT wound.
--
John Hill (joisa)


>
> Ed Cage Sep42026
>
>
>
> >***@yahoo.com (Robert Harris) wrote in message
news:<***@News.CIS.DFN.DE>...
> > On 2 Sep 2003 10:11:54 -0500, ***@earthlink.net (Ed Cage) wrote:
> >
> > >Ken I may be criticized for repeating this but
> > >the PH Drs were concerned w urgent life-saving
> > >methods, Their agenda was 180 different from
> > >the more accurate autopsy acct..
> >
> > Yoohoo!!
> >
> > Earth to Ed Cage.
> >
> > For the umpteenth time, LOOK AT BOSWELL'S drawing, er DRAWING!
> >
> > It clearly shows that the upper rear of the head was missing,
> > including the area where the HSCA docs tried to place an entry wound.
> > Boswell said Humes got his 13 cm measurement, only after a 4 cm piece,
> > which was obviously, blown out of the head, was flown back into
> > Bethesda and put back, when the head was reconstructed.
> >
> > Besides that 4 cm piece, Ed, and lot of blood and tissue was blown out
> > as well, more than 20 feet to Kennedy's left, and against the wind.
> >
> > That empty spot in the back of the head, Ed, where skull used to be,
> > is the EXIT WOUND.
> >
> > Or do you REALLY think that shot entered in the cowlick and then blew
> > out the cowlick, with all that gunk being blown 20 feet in the
> > OPPOSITE direction of the entering bullet????
> >
> > One other question Ed!
> >
> > ..do you REALLY think that shot entered in the cowlick and then blew
> > out the cowlick, with all that gunk being blown 20 feet in the
> > OPPOSITE direction of the entering bullet????
> >
> > If you can't handle both those questions, Ed, at least do one of them!
> >
> > And finally Ed, why was the BOH still in visibly perfect condition, at
> > Z317, even after the explosion had subsided??
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Robert Harris
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >ALSO:
> > >1) There were pictures & X-rays <--IMPORTANT &
> > >NOT FAKED.
> > >2) Really only 1 PH Dr had the BOH wound acct..
> > >McClelland @ PH.. The other Drs harshly discredited
> > >and dismissed his acct..
> > >3) The Z film was NOT FAKED EITHER.
> > >
> > >Ed Sep20518
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Ken West <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<***@hotmail.com>...
> > >> Paul Seaton wrote:
> > >> > "Ken West" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >> > news:***@hotmail.com...
> > >> >
> > >> >>Paul Seaton wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>>"Ken West" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >> >>>news:***@hotmail.com...
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>>Ed Cage wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>. . .snip . . .
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>>>>Anyone want to take a stab at WHY there was no
> > >> >>>>>frontal head shot EXIT wound?
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>Ed Cage aug311553
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>Would a frontal shot create, on exit,
> > >> >>>>"a large wound in his head, in the right rear area?"
> > >> >>>>as reported by Dr. Perry on the day of the event.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>The whole right side of his skull opened up.
> > >> >>>Bone fragments from the crown to the hairline were blown clean
away.
> > >> >>>The right rear was hanging loose.
> > . . . snip . . .
> > >> >>>It also created a massive hole in the FRONT of his head.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>Which somehow, the Parkland medics forgot to mention.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Drs. Salyer, Geisecke ( confusing left with right) did *not* forget
to > mention it.
> > >>
> > >> OK, two medics out of about 20 who thought that the
> > >> front/temporal was worth mentioning. I've clipped their WC
> > >> testimony, below. I find it less than convincing. I certainly
> > >> wouldn't want a doctor operating on me if he didn't know my left
> > >> from my right.
> > >>
> > >> > You can suppose that the right front wound did not exist at
> > >> > Parkland (in which case you have to show how the Z film was faked
> > >>
> > >> Don't know if/how it was faked; but certainly the Parkland medics
> > >> were closer.
> > >>
> > >> >&how& when & where JFK's right front skull was knocked to bits
> > - & why the docs
> > >> > above hallucinated a wound there)
> > >>
> > >> There's a whole book on that.
> > >>
> > >> > or you can suppose that Jackie had
> > >> > jammed up the gaping right front wound with the brains falling out
of it
> > >> > en route to Parkland, where it was largely (but not entirely)
unnoticed
> > >> > because the whole area was covered in scalp & plastered over with
half
> > >> > dried blood.
> > >>
> > >> I guess its known that she tried to stem the flow, but is there a
> > >> reference to where on the skull she was doing this?
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > I think the latter is the more reasonable alternative, but if you
want to
> > >> > defend the former, I'm all ears.
> > >>
> > >> There is much I don't know or understand, for sure; but it's
> > >> hard to discount the initial accounts of the people who were
> > >> there, close up to the fresh evidence, first -- ie., the Parkland
> > >> medics.
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > Paul Seaton
> > >>
> > >> Doc's testimony, below . . .
> > >>
> > >> regards,
> > >> Ken West
> > >>
> > >> Dr. SALYER.
> > >> . . .there were a lot of doctors standing around, and I didn't
> > >> really get to observe the nature of the wound in the throat.
> > >> . . .I came in on the left side of him and noticed that his
> > >> major wound seemed to be in his right temporal area, at least
> > >> from the point of view that I could see him, and other than
> > >> that--nothing other than he did have a gaping scalp wound--
> > >> cranial wound.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Dr. GIESECKE. It seemed that from the vertex to the left ear, and
> > >> from the browline to the occiput on the left-hand side of the
> > >> head the cranium was entirely missing.
> > >> Mr. SPECTER. Was that the left-hand side of the head, or the
> > >> right-hand side of the head ?
> > >> Dr. GIESECKE. I would say the left, but this is just my
> > >> memory of it.
> > >> Mr. SPECTER. That's your recollection ?
> > >> Dr. GIESECKE. Right, like I say, I was there a very short
> > >> time really.
> > >> Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any other wound or bullet hole
> > >> below the large area of missing skull ?
> > >> Dr. GIESECKE. No; when I arrived the tracheotomy was in
> > >> progress at that time and so I observed no other wound except the
> > >> one on the cranium.
> > >> Mr. SPECTER. On the cranium itself, did you observe another
> > >> bullet hole below the portion of missing skull ?
> > >> Dr. GIESECKE. No, sir; this was found later by Dr. Clark--I
> > >> didn't see this.
> > >> Mr. SPECTER. What makes you say that that hole was found
> > >> later by Dr. Clark?
> > >> Dr. GIESECKE. Well, this is hearsay--I wasn't there when
> > >> they found it and I didn't notice it.
> > >> Mr. SPECTER. Well, Dr. Clark didn't observe that hole.
> > >> Dr. GIESECKE. Oh, he didn't--I'm sorry.
> > >> Mr. SPECTER. From whom did you hear that the hole had been
> > >> observed, if you recollect?
> > >> Dr. GIESECKE-. Oh--I must be confused. We talked to so many
> > >> people about these things--I don't remember.
> > >> Mr. SPECTER. Now, with respect to the condition of the
> > >> President's neck, what was its status at the time you first
> > >> observed it?
> > >> Dr. GIESECKE. Well, like I say, they were performing the
> > >> tracheotomy, and I personally saw no wound in the neck other than
> > >> the tracheotomy wound. As soon as the tracheotomy was completed,
> > >> we removed the endotracheal tube and hooked the anesthesia
> > >> machine to the tracheotomy tube and efforts were made then to put
> > >> in a chest tube, an anterior chest tube.
> > >> Mr. SPECTER. How long were you with President Kennedy
> > >> altogether ?
> > >> Dr. GIESECKE. Approximately 5 minutes.
> > >
>
Paul Seaton
2003-09-06 01:33:46 UTC
Permalink
"John Hill" <***@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:***@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...


> Not everyone who says there was a large wound in the BOH is saying it was
an
> EXIT wound.
> --
> John Hill (joisa)


But I think that explains why LN'dom ( in general) has been so paranoid
about admtting the obvious.
That's what bugs me about yer average LN - a willingness to jump through the
most ridiculous hoops to get out of a bind that actually doesn't exist in
the first place.

Paul Seaton
Ed Cage
2003-09-02 00:14:04 UTC
Permalink
Ken according to the WC & The HSCA based
on the medical evidence, such as it currently
exits/existed, the EXIT wound was in the
upper right front area. I know of no other
existing EXIT wound.
This was based on numerous things, including
the beveled skull parts, Itek, and Z film data..

Ed Sep11432




Ken West <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<***@hotmail.com>...
> Ed Cage wrote:
> > Dr. Cyril Wecht maintained for a while at least,
> > that the head wounds did not preclude a frontal
> > shooter..
> >
> > HOWEVER Dr. Wecht was unable (as far as I know) to
> > ever explain why there was:
> >
> > NO FRONTAL SHOT HEAD E*X*I*T WOUND!
> >
> > Anyone want to take a stab at WHY there was no
> > frontal head shot EXIT wound?
> >
> > Ed Cage aug311553
> >
> Would a frontal shot create, on exit,
> "a large wound in his head, in the right rear area?"
> as reported by Dr. Perry on the day of the event.
>
> Ed, is it a F=A=C=T that there was no exit wound, 22Nov1963?
>
> Ken West
Ed Cage
2003-09-02 14:36:25 UTC
Permalink
HI Ken!
Perhaps I should have worded this thread/topic
more carefully.. I meant to pose the Q of

"IF there was a FRONTAL shot,
(Which imo is NOT what happened),
why wasn't there an EXIT wound from the
alleged FRONTAL shot?"<--Ed's 2nd pass at this thread/subject.

1) There WAS an EXIT wound in the upper right
front of the head. Dangling tissue, thick hair,
bloody matter hanging back/down caused confusion
at PH.. Perry ADMITTED nobody (including HIMSELF),
got a good look at the head wound..
2) There is/was no credible acct of a rear EXIT
or a "rear portion of the head being BLOWN out"
as is sometimes incorrectly stated.(NO REAR EXIT)
3) PH was concerned w urgent life-saving attempts.
Some of their early observations were f=l=a=w=e=d.
4) Ken, the isolated & hasty Parkland Hospital
BOH wound acct was contradicted and disputed by
Drs. Peters, Jenkins, and PERRY HIMSELF.

Ed Sep12306



Ken West <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<***@hotmail.com>...
> Ed Cage wrote:
> > Dr. Cyril Wecht maintained for a while at least,
> > that the head wounds did not preclude a frontal
> > shooter..
> >
> > HOWEVER Dr. Wecht was unable (as far as I know) to
> > ever explain why there was:
> >
> > NO FRONTAL SHOT HEAD E*X*I*T WOUND!
> >
> > Anyone want to take a stab at WHY there was no
> > frontal head shot EXIT wound?
> >
> > Ed Cage aug311553
> >
> Would a frontal shot create, on exit,
> "a large wound in his head, in the right rear area?"
> as reported by Dr. Perry on the day of the event.
>
> Ed, is it a F=A=C=T that there was no exit wound, 22Nov1963?
>
> Ken West
Barb Junkkarinen
2003-09-03 22:28:48 UTC
Permalink
"Ed Cage" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:***@posting.google.com...
> This could be our problem area Ken.. I know
> you require more than a book just S*A*Y*I*N*G
> something.. You are clearly the type who
> would not be satisfied w a statement, followed
> by absolutely no source or reasoning or
> justification for that statement..
> Am I right?

Cool, Ed ... does this mean you are catching on that you cannot just make
claims without posting citations from the documents to support those claims?
If so, how come you don't provide cites with your claims ... even when asked
and asked and asked by any number of people who you continually (not to
mention repeatedly...sigh) make those claims to?

> If so, did the
> "table showing only 2 of 21 medics seeing a front
> wound -- the others all indicating a rear wound"
> statement/position have a SOURCE?

He already answered this.

>
> (Ken this above Q from me to you may tend to
> "put you on the spot.") Certainly that is not my
> objective at all.. I just wish to illustrate that
> you were very likely not given a SOURCE for the
> above statement/position you read.. I=F THAT'S SO

Gotta love this paragraph:

> it is not going to be productive for you to so
> readily consider unsubstantiated statements that
> you read, then require a MUCH HIGHER,.. DIFFERENT
> standard of verification for positions that
> contradict what you read.

What's not productive, Ed, is your repetitive posts in multiple threads and
your totally UNSUBSTANTIATED claims about facts of record. You make these
claims without posting a citation and then chide OTHERS? Earth to Ed ...
when are you going to start providing documentation for your own claims
instead of playing like you're some all knowing ringmaster re what everyone
else posts, doesn't post, thinks, believes, should or should not be listened
to, etc?

Post cites for your own claims, Ed. Why do people have to ask you over and
over again for citations to support your claims .... and you still don't
provide them but go on and on about every body and every thing else?


>
> Respectfully, Ed Sep22233 Sep30748
>
>
>
> >Ken West <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> (snip::)
>
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...