InsideSparta
2018-07-02 02:33:23 UTC
Discussion:
(too old to reply)
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-02 19:35:42 UTC
Thanks. NB the discussion of JFK's reading ability.
Compare that to Trump's illiteracy.
Compare that to Trump's illiteracy.
mainframetech
2018-07-03 03:52:35 UTC
No much use. It seems Lipsey has forgotten his own statements closer
to the murder than this video.
It didn't make any sense for the general to say to Lipsey 'stay with
the body until it's in the ground'. It was going to be a couple days
before that would happen, and Lipsey was sure to have a bathroom call in
that time.
Lipsey left out all his talk of decoy ambulances and the attendant
events. He did mention that he and the general came to Bethesda on a
helicopter, but failed to note that there was casket with them.
Lipsey said that he helped get the body out of the casket and put it
on the table in the morgue, but the other men that did that didn't seem to
know he was there. He may have made that up too. His tale doesn't math
his own previous story, or with anyone else's stories.
Chris
to the murder than this video.
It didn't make any sense for the general to say to Lipsey 'stay with
the body until it's in the ground'. It was going to be a couple days
before that would happen, and Lipsey was sure to have a bathroom call in
that time.
Lipsey left out all his talk of decoy ambulances and the attendant
events. He did mention that he and the general came to Bethesda on a
helicopter, but failed to note that there was casket with them.
Lipsey said that he helped get the body out of the casket and put it
on the table in the morgue, but the other men that did that didn't seem to
know he was there. He may have made that up too. His tale doesn't math
his own previous story, or with anyone else's stories.
Chris
bigdog
2018-07-04 01:39:11 UTC
Post by mainframetech
No much use. It seems Lipsey has forgotten his own statements closer
to the murder than this video.
It didn't make any sense for the general to say to Lipsey 'stay with
the body until it's in the ground'. It was going to be a couple days
before that would happen, and Lipsey was sure to have a bathroom call in
that time.
Lipsey left out all his talk of decoy ambulances and the attendant
events. He did mention that he and the general came to Bethesda on a
helicopter, but failed to note that there was casket with them.
Because there wasn't and Lipsey NEVER said there was. Not in his earliestNo much use. It seems Lipsey has forgotten his own statements closer
to the murder than this video.
It didn't make any sense for the general to say to Lipsey 'stay with
the body until it's in the ground'. It was going to be a couple days
before that would happen, and Lipsey was sure to have a bathroom call in
that time.
Lipsey left out all his talk of decoy ambulances and the attendant
events. He did mention that he and the general came to Bethesda on a
helicopter, but failed to note that there was casket with them.
statements or any statement afterward. He ALWAYS said the casket went by
ground transportation while the honor guard flew to Bethesda so they would
be present when the body arrived.
Post by mainframetech
Lipsey said that he helped get the body out of the casket and put it
on the table in the morgue, but the other men that did that didn't seem to
know he was there. He may have made that up too. His tale doesn't math
his own previous story, or with anyone else's stories.
I don't suppose you ever stopped to consider that people like O'ConnorLipsey said that he helped get the body out of the casket and put it
on the table in the morgue, but the other men that did that didn't seem to
know he was there. He may have made that up too. His tale doesn't math
his own previous story, or with anyone else's stories.
made up his story. Of course you haven't. You want to believe what
O'Connor said so as far as you are concerned, his version is gospel.
mainframetech
2018-07-05 02:34:52 UTC
Post by bigdog
statements or any statement afterward. He ALWAYS said the casket went by
ground transportation while the honor guard flew to Bethesda so they would
be present when the body arrived.
That's what he said. But he and general Wehle had the job ofPost by mainframetech
No much use. It seems Lipsey has forgotten his own statements closer
to the murder than this video.
It didn't make any sense for the general to say to Lipsey 'stay with
the body until it's in the ground'. It was going to be a couple days
before that would happen, and Lipsey was sure to have a bathroom call in
that time.
Lipsey left out all his talk of decoy ambulances and the attendant
events. He did mention that he and the general came to Bethesda on a
helicopter, but failed to note that there was casket with them.
Because there wasn't and Lipsey NEVER said there was. Not in his earliestNo much use. It seems Lipsey has forgotten his own statements closer
to the murder than this video.
It didn't make any sense for the general to say to Lipsey 'stay with
the body until it's in the ground'. It was going to be a couple days
before that would happen, and Lipsey was sure to have a bathroom call in
that time.
Lipsey left out all his talk of decoy ambulances and the attendant
events. He did mention that he and the general came to Bethesda on a
helicopter, but failed to note that there was casket with them.
statements or any statement afterward. He ALWAYS said the casket went by
ground transportation while the honor guard flew to Bethesda so they would
be present when the body arrived.
smoothing out things that got bumpy. They got the body to Bethesda 42
minutes BEFORE the decoy ambulance got there! So how do you think they
did that? There is only one answer, helicopter.
Post by bigdog
made up his story. Of course you haven't. You want to believe what
O'Connor said so as far as you are concerned, his version is gospel.
O'Connor was corroborated. Lipsey wasn't. And it's easy for me toPost by mainframetech
Lipsey said that he helped get the body out of the casket and put it
on the table in the morgue, but the other men that did that didn't seem to
know he was there. He may have made that up too. His tale doesn't math
his own previous story, or with anyone else's stories.
I don't suppose you ever stopped to consider that people like O'ConnorLipsey said that he helped get the body out of the casket and put it
on the table in the morgue, but the other men that did that didn't seem to
know he was there. He may have made that up too. His tale doesn't math
his own previous story, or with anyone else's stories.
made up his story. Of course you haven't. You want to believe what
O'Connor said so as far as you are concerned, his version is gospel.
remind you of Howard Brennan.
Chris
bigdog
2018-07-06 01:21:18 UTC
Post by mainframetech
smoothing out things that got bumpy.
So once again you are going to "correct" a witness to make his account conform to your theories.Post by bigdog
statements or any statement afterward. He ALWAYS said the casket went by
ground transportation while the honor guard flew to Bethesda so they would
be present when the body arrived.
That's what he said. But he and general Wehle had the job ofPost by mainframetech
No much use. It seems Lipsey has forgotten his own statements closer
to the murder than this video.
It didn't make any sense for the general to say to Lipsey 'stay with
the body until it's in the ground'. It was going to be a couple days
before that would happen, and Lipsey was sure to have a bathroom call in
that time.
Lipsey left out all his talk of decoy ambulances and the attendant
events. He did mention that he and the general came to Bethesda on a
helicopter, but failed to note that there was casket with them.
Because there wasn't and Lipsey NEVER said there was. Not in his earliestNo much use. It seems Lipsey has forgotten his own statements closer
to the murder than this video.
It didn't make any sense for the general to say to Lipsey 'stay with
the body until it's in the ground'. It was going to be a couple days
before that would happen, and Lipsey was sure to have a bathroom call in
that time.
Lipsey left out all his talk of decoy ambulances and the attendant
events. He did mention that he and the general came to Bethesda on a
helicopter, but failed to note that there was casket with them.
statements or any statement afterward. He ALWAYS said the casket went by
ground transportation while the honor guard flew to Bethesda so they would
be present when the body arrived.
smoothing out things that got bumpy.
Post by mainframetech
They got the body to Bethesda 42
minutes BEFORE the decoy ambulance got there! So how do you think they
did that? There is only one answer, helicopter.
Still waiting for you to explain how they managed to unload a shippingThey got the body to Bethesda 42
minutes BEFORE the decoy ambulance got there! So how do you think they
did that? There is only one answer, helicopter.
casket from AF1 at Andrews without anybody seeing it.
Still waiting for you to quote a witness or a document that said the body
ARRIVED at Bethesda at 7:17.
Post by mainframetech
remind you of Howard Brennan.
Brennan was corroborated by physical evidence. O'Connor, not so much.Post by bigdog
made up his story. Of course you haven't. You want to believe what
O'Connor said so as far as you are concerned, his version is gospel.
O'Connor was corroborated. Lipsey wasn't. And it's easy for me toPost by mainframetech
Lipsey said that he helped get the body out of the casket and put it
on the table in the morgue, but the other men that did that didn't seem to
know he was there. He may have made that up too. His tale doesn't math
his own previous story, or with anyone else's stories.
I don't suppose you ever stopped to consider that people like O'ConnorLipsey said that he helped get the body out of the casket and put it
on the table in the morgue, but the other men that did that didn't seem to
know he was there. He may have made that up too. His tale doesn't math
his own previous story, or with anyone else's stories.
made up his story. Of course you haven't. You want to believe what
O'Connor said so as far as you are concerned, his version is gospel.
remind you of Howard Brennan.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-07 00:45:51 UTC
Post by bigdog
casket from AF1 at Andrews without anybody seeing it.
Still waiting for you to quote a witness or a document that said the body
ARRIVED at Bethesda at 7:17.
No. Brennan did not SEE the shells on the floor.Post by mainframetech
smoothing out things that got bumpy.
So once again you are going to "correct" a witness to make his account conform to your theories.Post by bigdog
statements or any statement afterward. He ALWAYS said the casket went by
ground transportation while the honor guard flew to Bethesda so they would
be present when the body arrived.
That's what he said. But he and general Wehle had the job ofPost by mainframetech
No much use. It seems Lipsey has forgotten his own statements closer
to the murder than this video.
It didn't make any sense for the general to say to Lipsey 'stay with
the body until it's in the ground'. It was going to be a couple days
before that would happen, and Lipsey was sure to have a bathroom call in
that time.
Lipsey left out all his talk of decoy ambulances and the attendant
events. He did mention that he and the general came to Bethesda on a
helicopter, but failed to note that there was casket with them.
Because there wasn't and Lipsey NEVER said there was. Not in his earliestNo much use. It seems Lipsey has forgotten his own statements closer
to the murder than this video.
It didn't make any sense for the general to say to Lipsey 'stay with
the body until it's in the ground'. It was going to be a couple days
before that would happen, and Lipsey was sure to have a bathroom call in
that time.
Lipsey left out all his talk of decoy ambulances and the attendant
events. He did mention that he and the general came to Bethesda on a
helicopter, but failed to note that there was casket with them.
statements or any statement afterward. He ALWAYS said the casket went by
ground transportation while the honor guard flew to Bethesda so they would
be present when the body arrived.
smoothing out things that got bumpy.
Post by mainframetech
They got the body to Bethesda 42
minutes BEFORE the decoy ambulance got there! So how do you think they
did that? There is only one answer, helicopter.
Still waiting for you to explain how they managed to unload a shippingThey got the body to Bethesda 42
minutes BEFORE the decoy ambulance got there! So how do you think they
did that? There is only one answer, helicopter.
casket from AF1 at Andrews without anybody seeing it.
Still waiting for you to quote a witness or a document that said the body
ARRIVED at Bethesda at 7:17.
Post by mainframetech
remind you of Howard Brennan.
Brennan was corroborated by physical evidence. O'Connor, not so much.Post by bigdog
made up his story. Of course you haven't. You want to believe what
O'Connor said so as far as you are concerned, his version is gospel.
O'Connor was corroborated. Lipsey wasn't. And it's easy for me toPost by mainframetech
Lipsey said that he helped get the body out of the casket and put it
on the table in the morgue, but the other men that did that didn't seem to
know he was there. He may have made that up too. His tale doesn't math
his own previous story, or with anyone else's stories.
I don't suppose you ever stopped to consider that people like O'ConnorLipsey said that he helped get the body out of the casket and put it
on the table in the morgue, but the other men that did that didn't seem to
know he was there. He may have made that up too. His tale doesn't math
his own previous story, or with anyone else's stories.
made up his story. Of course you haven't. You want to believe what
O'Connor said so as far as you are concerned, his version is gospel.
remind you of Howard Brennan.
mainframetech
2018-07-07 12:55:06 UTC
Post by bigdog
WRONG and FALSE! You always get yourself in trouble when you try toPost by mainframetech
smoothing out things that got bumpy.
So once again you are going to "correct" a witness to make his account conform to your theories.Post by bigdog
statements or any statement afterward. He ALWAYS said the casket went by
ground transportation while the honor guard flew to Bethesda so they would
be present when the body arrived.
That's what he said. But he and general Wehle had the job ofPost by mainframetech
No much use. It seems Lipsey has forgotten his own statements closer
to the murder than this video.
It didn't make any sense for the general to say to Lipsey 'stay with
the body until it's in the ground'. It was going to be a couple days
before that would happen, and Lipsey was sure to have a bathroom call in
that time.
Lipsey left out all his talk of decoy ambulances and the attendant
events. He did mention that he and the general came to Bethesda on a
helicopter, but failed to note that there was casket with them.
Because there wasn't and Lipsey NEVER said there was. Not in his earliestNo much use. It seems Lipsey has forgotten his own statements closer
to the murder than this video.
It didn't make any sense for the general to say to Lipsey 'stay with
the body until it's in the ground'. It was going to be a couple days
before that would happen, and Lipsey was sure to have a bathroom call in
that time.
Lipsey left out all his talk of decoy ambulances and the attendant
events. He did mention that he and the general came to Bethesda on a
helicopter, but failed to note that there was casket with them.
statements or any statement afterward. He ALWAYS said the casket went by
ground transportation while the honor guard flew to Bethesda so they would
be present when the body arrived.
smoothing out things that got bumpy.
guess at stuff. I did not have to correct Lipsey's statements, I simple
recommended that you compare his statements with his statement of an
earlier time. He had changed his story quite a bit, and left out the part
about the 'decoy' ambulance which he had originally talked about.
Post by bigdog
casket from AF1 at Andrews without anybody seeing it.
That's been answered many times already. After the Bronze casket wasPost by mainframetech
They got the body to Bethesda 42
minutes BEFORE the decoy ambulance got there! So how do you think they
did that? There is only one answer, helicopter.
Still waiting for you to explain how they managed to unload a shippingThey got the body to Bethesda 42
minutes BEFORE the decoy ambulance got there! So how do you think they
did that? There is only one answer, helicopter.
casket from AF1 at Andrews without anybody seeing it.
sent on its way, no one was going to stick around and wait to see if
anything else came out of AF1. That's when the SHIPPING casket would come
out.
Post by bigdog
Still waiting for you to quote a witness or a document that said the body
ARRIVED at Bethesda at 7:17.
That's an old argument and we've gone over it a number of times.Still waiting for you to quote a witness or a document that said the body
ARRIVED at Bethesda at 7:17.
Post by bigdog
ChrisPost by mainframetech
remind you of Howard Brennan.
Brennan was corroborated by physical evidence. O'Connor, not so much. There was NO PHYSICAL evidence that described Oswald in the window on the 6th floor.Post by bigdog
made up his story. Of course you haven't. You want to believe what
O'Connor said so as far as you are concerned, his version is gospel.
O'Connor was corroborated. Lipsey wasn't. And it's easy for me toPost by mainframetech
Lipsey said that he helped get the body out of the casket and put it
on the table in the morgue, but the other men that did that didn't seem to
know he was there. He may have made that up too. His tale doesn't match
his own previous story, or with anyone else's stories.
I don't suppose you ever stopped to consider that people like O'ConnorLipsey said that he helped get the body out of the casket and put it
on the table in the morgue, but the other men that did that didn't seem to
know he was there. He may have made that up too. His tale doesn't match
his own previous story, or with anyone else's stories.
made up his story. Of course you haven't. You want to believe what
O'Connor said so as far as you are concerned, his version is gospel.
remind you of Howard Brennan.
bigdog
2018-07-07 22:23:23 UTC
Post by mainframetech
guess at stuff. I did not have to correct Lipsey's statements, I simple
recommended that you compare his statements with his statement of an
earlier time. He had changed his story quite a bit, and left out the part
about the 'decoy' ambulance which he had originally talked about.
According to Lipsey's initial account there were two ambulances and thePost by bigdog
WRONG and FALSE! You always get yourself in trouble when you try toPost by mainframetech
smoothing out things that got bumpy.
So once again you are going to "correct" a witness to make his account conform to your theories.Post by bigdog
statements or any statement afterward. He ALWAYS said the casket went by
ground transportation while the honor guard flew to Bethesda so they would
be present when the body arrived.
That's what he said. But he and general Wehle had the job ofPost by mainframetech
No much use. It seems Lipsey has forgotten his own statements closer
to the murder than this video.
It didn't make any sense for the general to say to Lipsey 'stay with
the body until it's in the ground'. It was going to be a couple days
before that would happen, and Lipsey was sure to have a bathroom call in
that time.
Lipsey left out all his talk of decoy ambulances and the attendant
events. He did mention that he and the general came to Bethesda on a
helicopter, but failed to note that there was casket with them.
Because there wasn't and Lipsey NEVER said there was. Not in his earliestNo much use. It seems Lipsey has forgotten his own statements closer
to the murder than this video.
It didn't make any sense for the general to say to Lipsey 'stay with
the body until it's in the ground'. It was going to be a couple days
before that would happen, and Lipsey was sure to have a bathroom call in
that time.
Lipsey left out all his talk of decoy ambulances and the attendant
events. He did mention that he and the general came to Bethesda on a
helicopter, but failed to note that there was casket with them.
statements or any statement afterward. He ALWAYS said the casket went by
ground transportation while the honor guard flew to Bethesda so they would
be present when the body arrived.
smoothing out things that got bumpy.
guess at stuff. I did not have to correct Lipsey's statements, I simple
recommended that you compare his statements with his statement of an
earlier time. He had changed his story quite a bit, and left out the part
about the 'decoy' ambulance which he had originally talked about.
body was in one of them. He ALWAYS has said the body was not flown to
Bethesda. That is the part you want to ignore. Lipsey has also said from
his observations at the autopsy it was obvious to him JFK had been shot in
the BOH, blowing out the upper right side of the skull. You like to ignore
that too.
Post by mainframetech
Your answer had always been they unloaded it on the opposite side of thePost by bigdog
casket from AF1 at Andrews without anybody seeing it.
That's been answered many times already.Post by mainframetech
They got the body to Bethesda 42
minutes BEFORE the decoy ambulance got there! So how do you think they
did that? There is only one answer, helicopter.
Still waiting for you to explain how they managed to unload a shippingThey got the body to Bethesda 42
minutes BEFORE the decoy ambulance got there! So how do you think they
did that? There is only one answer, helicopter.
casket from AF1 at Andrews without anybody seeing it.
plane where it was too dark to see what was happening. Then you learned
the plane had no doors on that side. I have yet to see your substitution
for that original claim.
Post by mainframetech
After the Bronze casket was
sent on its way, no one was going to stick around and wait to see if
anything else came out of AF1. That's when the SHIPPING casket would come
out.
So you think that after LBJ delivered his address to the nation and thenAfter the Bronze casket was
sent on its way, no one was going to stick around and wait to see if
anything else came out of AF1. That's when the SHIPPING casket would come
out.
stopped to meet with the congressional leaders who were gathered there,
and then after LBJ departed by helicopter, everyone there including all
those witnesses and cameras suddenly vanished. That nobody stayed around.
That AF1 was just left unguarded. And of course your conspirators had to
be able to count on all that happening. Even if all that had happened, the
ambulance would have had quite a head start to go from Andrews to Bethesda
and they would still need the time to unload your shipping casket from the
plane and load it on the helicopter. After all that, you still think your
shipping casket reached Bethesda 42 minutes before the ambulance with the
ornamental casket. According to Bing, the drive time from Andrews to
Bethesda is only 40 minutes and that is if you or I were driving it. With
a police escort and not having to make any traffic stops, it would take
considerably less time. Sorry, your scenario just does not compute.
Post by mainframetech
I know we have which is why I know you don't have an answer. Nobody saidPost by bigdog
Still waiting for you to quote a witness or a document that said the body
ARRIVED at Bethesda at 7:17.
That's an old argument and we've gone over it a number of times.Still waiting for you to quote a witness or a document that said the body
ARRIVED at Bethesda at 7:17.
the ornamental casket arrived at 7:17. Sibert said that at 7:17 they began
preparations for the autopsy. That is the only reference by any witness to
7:17. You know all this yet you continue to try to propagate the myth that
the bronze casket arrived at 7:17 because some kook website made that
claim and you accepted the claim as fact.
Post by mainframetech
Brennan's sighting of the shooter was corroborated by the presence of thePost by bigdog
There was NO PHYSICAL evidence that described Oswald in the window on the 6th floor.Post by mainframetech
remind you of Howard Brennan.
Brennan was corroborated by physical evidence. O'Connor, not so much.Post by bigdog
made up his story. Of course you haven't. You want to believe what
O'Connor said so as far as you are concerned, his version is gospel.
O'Connor was corroborated. Lipsey wasn't. And it's easy for me toPost by mainframetech
Lipsey said that he helped get the body out of the casket and put it
on the table in the morgue, but the other men that did that didn't seem to
know he was there. He may have made that up too. His tale doesn't match
his own previous story, or with anyone else's stories.
I don't suppose you ever stopped to consider that people like O'ConnorLipsey said that he helped get the body out of the casket and put it
on the table in the morgue, but the other men that did that didn't seem to
know he was there. He may have made that up too. His tale doesn't match
his own previous story, or with anyone else's stories.
made up his story. Of course you haven't. You want to believe what
O'Connor said so as far as you are concerned, his version is gospel.
remind you of Howard Brennan.
3 shells found at that window. His ID of Oswald is corroborated by the
fact Oswald's rifle was found on that floor, the shells that were at that
window could only have been fired by Oswald's rifle, Oswald's fingerprints
were found on the boxes at that location oriented just as they would be if
facing down Elm St., fibers from his shirt matched the fibers on the butt
plate of the rifle, his fingerprints were found on a large paper bag and
that bag contained fibers matching the blanket he used to store his rifle
in at the Paine house. In short all the physical evidence is exactly what
we would expect it to be if Brennan's ID of Oswald was accurate. But of
course you will claim none of that proves Oswald was the shooter. None of
it BY ITSELF proves Oswald was the shooter. Collectively, it leaves no
doubt. The only way all that evidence would be present linking Oswald to
the shooting is if Oswald was the shooter.
mainframetech
2018-07-09 14:00:56 UTC
Post by bigdog
body was in one of them. He ALWAYS has said the body was not flown to
Bethesda. That is the part you want to ignore. Lipsey has also said from
his observations at the autopsy it was obvious to him JFK had been shot in
the BOH, blowing out the upper right side of the skull. You like to ignore
that too.
WRONG! I don't ignore it. I've simply seen better information that isPost by mainframetech
guess at stuff. I did not have to correct Lipsey's statements, I simple
recommended that you compare his statements with his statement of an
earlier time. He had changed his story quite a bit, and left out the part
about the 'decoy' ambulance which he had originally talked about.
According to Lipsey's initial account there were two ambulances and thePost by bigdog
WRONG and FALSE! You always get yourself in trouble when you try toPost by mainframetech
smoothing out things that got bumpy.
So once again you are going to "correct" a witness to make his account conform to your theories.Post by bigdog
statements or any statement afterward. He ALWAYS said the casket went by
ground transportation while the honor guard flew to Bethesda so they would
be present when the body arrived.
That's what he said. But he and general Wehle had the job ofPost by mainframetech
No much use. It seems Lipsey has forgotten his own statements closer
to the murder than this video.
It didn't make any sense for the general to say to Lipsey 'stay with
the body until it's in the ground'. It was going to be a couple days
before that would happen, and Lipsey was sure to have a bathroom call in
that time.
Lipsey left out all his talk of decoy ambulances and the attendant
events. He did mention that he and the general came to Bethesda on a
helicopter, but failed to note that there was casket with them.
Because there wasn't and Lipsey NEVER said there was. Not in his earliestNo much use. It seems Lipsey has forgotten his own statements closer
to the murder than this video.
It didn't make any sense for the general to say to Lipsey 'stay with
the body until it's in the ground'. It was going to be a couple days
before that would happen, and Lipsey was sure to have a bathroom call in
that time.
Lipsey left out all his talk of decoy ambulances and the attendant
events. He did mention that he and the general came to Bethesda on a
helicopter, but failed to note that there was casket with them.
statements or any statement afterward. He ALWAYS said the casket went by
ground transportation while the honor guard flew to Bethesda so they would
be present when the body arrived.
smoothing out things that got bumpy.
guess at stuff. I did not have to correct Lipsey's statements, I simple
recommended that you compare his statements with his statement of an
earlier time. He had changed his story quite a bit, and left out the part
about the 'decoy' ambulance which he had originally talked about.
body was in one of them. He ALWAYS has said the body was not flown to
Bethesda. That is the part you want to ignore. Lipsey has also said from
his observations at the autopsy it was obvious to him JFK had been shot in
the BOH, blowing out the upper right side of the skull. You like to ignore
that too.
corroborated, which Lipsey's isn't. So do you accept his statement of the
2 ambulances and the 'decoy'?
Post by bigdog
plane where it was too dark to see what was happening. Then you learned
the plane had no doors on that side. I have yet to see your substitution
for that original claim.
Then you haven't been watching. They simply waited for the crowds toPost by mainframetech
Your answer had always been they unloaded it on the opposite side of thePost by bigdog
casket from AF1 at Andrews without anybody seeing it.
That's been answered many times already.Post by mainframetech
They got the body to Bethesda 42
minutes BEFORE the decoy ambulance got there! So how do you think they
did that? There is only one answer, helicopter.
Still waiting for you to explain how they managed to unload a shippingThey got the body to Bethesda 42
minutes BEFORE the decoy ambulance got there! So how do you think they
did that? There is only one answer, helicopter.
casket from AF1 at Andrews without anybody seeing it.
plane where it was too dark to see what was happening. Then you learned
the plane had no doors on that side. I have yet to see your substitution
for that original claim.
go away, which they would when the ambulance with the casket left. Now
don't ask that one again.
Post by bigdog
stopped to meet with the congressional leaders who were gathered there,
and then after LBJ departed by helicopter, everyone there including all
those witnesses and cameras suddenly vanished. That nobody stayed around.
That AF1 was just left unguarded. And of course your conspirators had to
be able to count on all that happening.
I'm not aware of all that happening. How much of it was made up byPost by mainframetech
After the Bronze casket was
sent on its way, no one was going to stick around and wait to see if
anything else came out of AF1. That's when the SHIPPING casket would come
out.
So you think that after LBJ delivered his address to the nation and thenAfter the Bronze casket was
sent on its way, no one was going to stick around and wait to see if
anything else came out of AF1. That's when the SHIPPING casket would come
out.
stopped to meet with the congressional leaders who were gathered there,
and then after LBJ departed by helicopter, everyone there including all
those witnesses and cameras suddenly vanished. That nobody stayed around.
That AF1 was just left unguarded. And of course your conspirators had to
be able to count on all that happening.
you?
Post by bigdog
Even if all that had happened, the
ambulance would have had quite a head start to go from Andrews to Bethesda
and they would still need the time to unload your shipping casket from the
plane and load it on the helicopter. After all that, you still think your
shipping casket reached Bethesda 42 minutes before the ambulance with the
ornamental casket. According to Bing, the drive time from Andrews to
Bethesda is only 40 minutes and that is if you or I were driving it. With
a police escort and not having to make any traffic stops, it would take
considerably less time. Sorry, your scenario just does not compute.
Sorry, I read it that they took their time, as often happens withEven if all that had happened, the
ambulance would have had quite a head start to go from Andrews to Bethesda
and they would still need the time to unload your shipping casket from the
plane and load it on the helicopter. After all that, you still think your
shipping casket reached Bethesda 42 minutes before the ambulance with the
ornamental casket. According to Bing, the drive time from Andrews to
Bethesda is only 40 minutes and that is if you or I were driving it. With
a police escort and not having to make any traffic stops, it would take
considerably less time. Sorry, your scenario just does not compute.
transporting a casket. Here's a minute by minute schedule of the events
of the day. Check out that the Casket left the airport at 6:00pm and
didn't arrive until at least 7:00pm:
http://www.businessinsider.com/kennedy-assassination-timeline-2013-11#620-pm-ct-23
It's really amazing the things you'll make up. Your whole scenario was
invented.
Post by bigdog
the ornamental casket arrived at 7:17. Sibert said that at 7:17 they began
preparations for the autopsy. That is the only reference by any witness to
7:17. You know all this yet you continue to try to propagate the myth that
the bronze casket arrived at 7:17 because some kook website made that
claim and you accepted the claim as fact.
OBVIOUSLY you cannot begin an autopsy until the body gets there, soPost by mainframetech
I know we have which is why I know you don't have an answer. Nobody saidPost by bigdog
Still waiting for you to quote a witness or a document that said the body
ARRIVED at Bethesda at 7:17.
That's an old argument and we've gone over it a number of times.Still waiting for you to quote a witness or a document that said the body
ARRIVED at Bethesda at 7:17.
the ornamental casket arrived at 7:17. Sibert said that at 7:17 they began
preparations for the autopsy. That is the only reference by any witness to
7:17. You know all this yet you continue to try to propagate the myth that
the bronze casket arrived at 7:17 because some kook website made that
claim and you accepted the claim as fact.
7:17pm has to be the earliest that the body got there. There are places
in the story where the motorcade arrived at the main entrance at 7:07pm,
so that leaves time for the debarking of the family and the time for the
ambulance to go around back to the morgue and unload the empty casket.
If you go again to the minute-by-minute schedule of events, you'll see
they record the family getting to Bethesda at 7:00pm ET.
They're off by a few minutes, but that is close enough to make it
clear that the ambulance with the empty Bronze casket arrived long after
the SHIPPING casket with the body in it (6:35pm).
Post by bigdog
3 shells found at that window.
WRONG! Shells don't corroborate the sighting of a person. And BrennanPost by mainframetech
Brennan's sighting of the shooter was corroborated by the presence of thePost by bigdog
There was NO PHYSICAL evidence that described Oswald in the window on the 6th floor.Post by mainframetech
remind you of Howard Brennan.
Brennan was corroborated by physical evidence. O'Connor, not so much.Post by bigdog
made up his story. Of course you haven't. You want to believe what
O'Connor said so as far as you are concerned, his version is gospel.
O'Connor was corroborated. Lipsey wasn't. And it's easy for me toPost by mainframetech
Lipsey said that he helped get the body out of the casket and put it
on the table in the morgue, but the other men that did that didn't seem to
know he was there. He may have made that up too. His tale doesn't match
his own previous story, or with anyone else's stories.
I don't suppose you ever stopped to consider that people like O'ConnorLipsey said that he helped get the body out of the casket and put it
on the table in the morgue, but the other men that did that didn't seem to
know he was there. He may have made that up too. His tale doesn't match
his own previous story, or with anyone else's stories.
made up his story. Of course you haven't. You want to believe what
O'Connor said so as far as you are concerned, his version is gospel.
remind you of Howard Brennan.
3 shells found at that window.
was discredited anyway.
Post by bigdog
His ID of Oswald is corroborated by the
fact Oswald's rifle was found on that floor, the shells that were at that
window could only have been fired by Oswald's rifle, Oswald's fingerprints
were found on the boxes at that location oriented just as they would be if
facing down Elm St., fibers from his shirt matched the fibers on the butt
plate of the rifle, his fingerprints were found on a large paper bag and
that bag contained fibers matching the blanket he used to store his rifle
in at the Paine house. In short all the physical evidence is exactly what
we would expect it to be if Brennan's ID of Oswald was accurate. But of
course you will claim none of that proves Oswald was the shooter. None of
it BY ITSELF proves Oswald was the shooter. Collectively, it leaves no
doubt. The only way all that evidence would be present linking Oswald to
the shooting is if Oswald was the shooter.
COLLECTIVELY, none of the information relating to Oswald's ownership ofHis ID of Oswald is corroborated by the
fact Oswald's rifle was found on that floor, the shells that were at that
window could only have been fired by Oswald's rifle, Oswald's fingerprints
were found on the boxes at that location oriented just as they would be if
facing down Elm St., fibers from his shirt matched the fibers on the butt
plate of the rifle, his fingerprints were found on a large paper bag and
that bag contained fibers matching the blanket he used to store his rifle
in at the Paine house. In short all the physical evidence is exactly what
we would expect it to be if Brennan's ID of Oswald was accurate. But of
course you will claim none of that proves Oswald was the shooter. None of
it BY ITSELF proves Oswald was the shooter. Collectively, it leaves no
doubt. The only way all that evidence would be present linking Oswald to
the shooting is if Oswald was the shooter.
the rifle or presences of prints in the TSBD prove that Oswald was in the
window with the MC rifle firing into the motorcade. There was however,
evidence that there were 2 men in the window of the 6th floor with a gun.
Chris
bigdog
2018-07-10 14:21:46 UTC
Post by mainframetech
corroborated, which Lipsey's isn't. So do you accept his statement of the
2 ambulances and the 'decoy'?
go away, which they would when the ambulance with the casket left. Now
don't ask that one again.
you?
transporting a casket. Here's a minute by minute schedule of the events
of the day. Check out that the Casket left the airport at 6:00pm and
http://www.businessinsider.com/kennedy-assassination-timeline-2013-11#620-pm-ct-23
It's really amazing the things you'll make up. Your whole scenario was
invented.
7:17pm has to be the earliest that the body got there.
That's not what the witness said. He said the body was already beingPost by bigdog
body was in one of them. He ALWAYS has said the body was not flown to
Bethesda. That is the part you want to ignore. Lipsey has also said from
his observations at the autopsy it was obvious to him JFK had been shot in
the BOH, blowing out the upper right side of the skull. You like to ignore
that too.
WRONG! I don't ignore it. I've simply seen better information that isPost by mainframetech
guess at stuff. I did not have to correct Lipsey's statements, I simple
recommended that you compare his statements with his statement of an
earlier time. He had changed his story quite a bit, and left out the part
about the 'decoy' ambulance which he had originally talked about.
According to Lipsey's initial account there were two ambulances and thePost by bigdog
WRONG and FALSE! You always get yourself in trouble when you try toPost by mainframetech
smoothing out things that got bumpy.
So once again you are going to "correct" a witness to make his account conform to your theories.Post by bigdog
statements or any statement afterward. He ALWAYS said the casket went by
ground transportation while the honor guard flew to Bethesda so they would
be present when the body arrived.
That's what he said. But he and general Wehle had the job ofPost by mainframetech
No much use. It seems Lipsey has forgotten his own statements closer
to the murder than this video.
It didn't make any sense for the general to say to Lipsey 'stay with
the body until it's in the ground'. It was going to be a couple days
before that would happen, and Lipsey was sure to have a bathroom call in
that time.
Lipsey left out all his talk of decoy ambulances and the attendant
events. He did mention that he and the general came to Bethesda on a
helicopter, but failed to note that there was casket with them.
Because there wasn't and Lipsey NEVER said there was. Not in his earliestNo much use. It seems Lipsey has forgotten his own statements closer
to the murder than this video.
It didn't make any sense for the general to say to Lipsey 'stay with
the body until it's in the ground'. It was going to be a couple days
before that would happen, and Lipsey was sure to have a bathroom call in
that time.
Lipsey left out all his talk of decoy ambulances and the attendant
events. He did mention that he and the general came to Bethesda on a
helicopter, but failed to note that there was casket with them.
statements or any statement afterward. He ALWAYS said the casket went by
ground transportation while the honor guard flew to Bethesda so they would
be present when the body arrived.
smoothing out things that got bumpy.
guess at stuff. I did not have to correct Lipsey's statements, I simple
recommended that you compare his statements with his statement of an
earlier time. He had changed his story quite a bit, and left out the part
about the 'decoy' ambulance which he had originally talked about.
body was in one of them. He ALWAYS has said the body was not flown to
Bethesda. That is the part you want to ignore. Lipsey has also said from
his observations at the autopsy it was obvious to him JFK had been shot in
the BOH, blowing out the upper right side of the skull. You like to ignore
that too.
corroborated, which Lipsey's isn't. So do you accept his statement of the
2 ambulances and the 'decoy'?
Post by bigdog
plane where it was too dark to see what was happening. Then you learned
the plane had no doors on that side. I have yet to see your substitution
for that original claim.
Then you haven't been watching. They simply waited for the crowds toPost by mainframetech
Your answer had always been they unloaded it on the opposite side of thePost by bigdog
casket from AF1 at Andrews without anybody seeing it.
That's been answered many times already.Post by mainframetech
They got the body to Bethesda 42
minutes BEFORE the decoy ambulance got there! So how do you think they
did that? There is only one answer, helicopter.
Still waiting for you to explain how they managed to unload a shippingThey got the body to Bethesda 42
minutes BEFORE the decoy ambulance got there! So how do you think they
did that? There is only one answer, helicopter.
casket from AF1 at Andrews without anybody seeing it.
plane where it was too dark to see what was happening. Then you learned
the plane had no doors on that side. I have yet to see your substitution
for that original claim.
go away, which they would when the ambulance with the casket left. Now
don't ask that one again.
Post by bigdog
stopped to meet with the congressional leaders who were gathered there,
and then after LBJ departed by helicopter, everyone there including all
those witnesses and cameras suddenly vanished. That nobody stayed around.
That AF1 was just left unguarded. And of course your conspirators had to
be able to count on all that happening.
I'm not aware of all that happening. How much of it was made up byPost by mainframetech
After the Bronze casket was
sent on its way, no one was going to stick around and wait to see if
anything else came out of AF1. That's when the SHIPPING casket would come
out.
So you think that after LBJ delivered his address to the nation and thenAfter the Bronze casket was
sent on its way, no one was going to stick around and wait to see if
anything else came out of AF1. That's when the SHIPPING casket would come
out.
stopped to meet with the congressional leaders who were gathered there,
and then after LBJ departed by helicopter, everyone there including all
those witnesses and cameras suddenly vanished. That nobody stayed around.
That AF1 was just left unguarded. And of course your conspirators had to
be able to count on all that happening.
you?
Post by bigdog
Even if all that had happened, the
ambulance would have had quite a head start to go from Andrews to Bethesda
and they would still need the time to unload your shipping casket from the
plane and load it on the helicopter. After all that, you still think your
shipping casket reached Bethesda 42 minutes before the ambulance with the
ornamental casket. According to Bing, the drive time from Andrews to
Bethesda is only 40 minutes and that is if you or I were driving it. With
a police escort and not having to make any traffic stops, it would take
considerably less time. Sorry, your scenario just does not compute.
Sorry, I read it that they took their time, as often happens withEven if all that had happened, the
ambulance would have had quite a head start to go from Andrews to Bethesda
and they would still need the time to unload your shipping casket from the
plane and load it on the helicopter. After all that, you still think your
shipping casket reached Bethesda 42 minutes before the ambulance with the
ornamental casket. According to Bing, the drive time from Andrews to
Bethesda is only 40 minutes and that is if you or I were driving it. With
a police escort and not having to make any traffic stops, it would take
considerably less time. Sorry, your scenario just does not compute.
transporting a casket. Here's a minute by minute schedule of the events
of the day. Check out that the Casket left the airport at 6:00pm and
http://www.businessinsider.com/kennedy-assassination-timeline-2013-11#620-pm-ct-23
It's really amazing the things you'll make up. Your whole scenario was
invented.
Post by bigdog
the ornamental casket arrived at 7:17. Sibert said that at 7:17 they began
preparations for the autopsy. That is the only reference by any witness to
7:17. You know all this yet you continue to try to propagate the myth that
the bronze casket arrived at 7:17 because some kook website made that
claim and you accepted the claim as fact.
OBVIOUSLY you cannot begin an autopsy until the body gets there, soPost by mainframetech
I know we have which is why I know you don't have an answer. Nobody saidPost by bigdog
Still waiting for you to quote a witness or a document that said the body
ARRIVED at Bethesda at 7:17.
That's an old argument and we've gone over it a number of times.Still waiting for you to quote a witness or a document that said the body
ARRIVED at Bethesda at 7:17.
the ornamental casket arrived at 7:17. Sibert said that at 7:17 they began
preparations for the autopsy. That is the only reference by any witness to
7:17. You know all this yet you continue to try to propagate the myth that
the bronze casket arrived at 7:17 because some kook website made that
claim and you accepted the claim as fact.
7:17pm has to be the earliest that the body got there.
prepped for autopsy at 7:17 which means it would have to have arrived at
the loading dock considerably earlier than that. Add to that fact that now
you've added a third casket arrival with your hilarious story about the
body being put back into the bronze casket and then shipped out, only to
arrive a second time. So that means if the body was being prepped for
autopsy at 7:17, the empty casket would have to have arrived much earlier
than that to allow time for all the casket switching and second arrivals
which you have postulated.
Post by mainframetech
There are places
in the story where the motorcade arrived at the main entrance at 7:07pm,
so that leaves time for the debarking of the family and the time for the
ambulance to go around back to the morgue and unload the empty casket.
If you go again to the minute-by-minute schedule of events, you'll see
they record the family getting to Bethesda at 7:00pm ET.
Cite this minute-by-minute schedule please.There are places
in the story where the motorcade arrived at the main entrance at 7:07pm,
so that leaves time for the debarking of the family and the time for the
ambulance to go around back to the morgue and unload the empty casket.
If you go again to the minute-by-minute schedule of events, you'll see
they record the family getting to Bethesda at 7:00pm ET.
Post by mainframetech
They're off by a few minutes, but that is close enough to make it
clear that the ambulance with the empty Bronze casket arrived long after
the SHIPPING casket with the body in it (6:35pm).
Was that the second arrival or the third arrival? <chuckle>They're off by a few minutes, but that is close enough to make it
clear that the ambulance with the empty Bronze casket arrived long after
the SHIPPING casket with the body in it (6:35pm).
Post by mainframetech
was discredited anyway.
Unless you want to argue the shooter wasn't a person, his sighting of aPost by bigdog
3 shells found at that window.
WRONG! Shells don't corroborate the sighting of a person. And BrennanPost by mainframetech
Brennan's sighting of the shooter was corroborated by the presence of thePost by bigdog
There was NO PHYSICAL evidence that described Oswald in the window on the 6th floor.Post by mainframetech
remind you of Howard Brennan.
Brennan was corroborated by physical evidence. O'Connor, not so much.Post by bigdog
made up his story. Of course you haven't. You want to believe what
O'Connor said so as far as you are concerned, his version is gospel.
O'Connor was corroborated. Lipsey wasn't. And it's easy for me toPost by mainframetech
Lipsey said that he helped get the body out of the casket and put it
on the table in the morgue, but the other men that did that didn't seem to
know he was there. He may have made that up too. His tale doesn't match
his own previous story, or with anyone else's stories.
I don't suppose you ever stopped to consider that people like O'ConnorLipsey said that he helped get the body out of the casket and put it
on the table in the morgue, but the other men that did that didn't seem to
know he was there. He may have made that up too. His tale doesn't match
his own previous story, or with anyone else's stories.
made up his story. Of course you haven't. You want to believe what
O'Connor said so as far as you are concerned, his version is gospel.
remind you of Howard Brennan.
3 shells found at that window.
was discredited anyway.
person shooting from that window is corroborated.
Post by mainframetech
the rifle or presences of prints in the TSBD prove that Oswald was in the
window with the MC rifle firing into the motorcade. There was however,
evidence that there were 2 men in the window of the 6th floor with a gun.
All that evidence isn't enough to convince you that Oswald was the shooterPost by bigdog
His ID of Oswald is corroborated by the
fact Oswald's rifle was found on that floor, the shells that were at that
window could only have been fired by Oswald's rifle, Oswald's fingerprints
were found on the boxes at that location oriented just as they would be if
facing down Elm St., fibers from his shirt matched the fibers on the butt
plate of the rifle, his fingerprints were found on a large paper bag and
that bag contained fibers matching the blanket he used to store his rifle
in at the Paine house. In short all the physical evidence is exactly what
we would expect it to be if Brennan's ID of Oswald was accurate. But of
course you will claim none of that proves Oswald was the shooter. None of
it BY ITSELF proves Oswald was the shooter. Collectively, it leaves no
doubt. The only way all that evidence would be present linking Oswald to
the shooting is if Oswald was the shooter.
COLLECTIVELY, none of the information relating to Oswald's ownership ofHis ID of Oswald is corroborated by the
fact Oswald's rifle was found on that floor, the shells that were at that
window could only have been fired by Oswald's rifle, Oswald's fingerprints
were found on the boxes at that location oriented just as they would be if
facing down Elm St., fibers from his shirt matched the fibers on the butt
plate of the rifle, his fingerprints were found on a large paper bag and
that bag contained fibers matching the blanket he used to store his rifle
in at the Paine house. In short all the physical evidence is exactly what
we would expect it to be if Brennan's ID of Oswald was accurate. But of
course you will claim none of that proves Oswald was the shooter. None of
it BY ITSELF proves Oswald was the shooter. Collectively, it leaves no
doubt. The only way all that evidence would be present linking Oswald to
the shooting is if Oswald was the shooter.
the rifle or presences of prints in the TSBD prove that Oswald was in the
window with the MC rifle firing into the motorcade. There was however,
evidence that there were 2 men in the window of the 6th floor with a gun.
yet you are willing to believe that Loy Factor and Mac Wallace were up
there shooting based on nothing but somebody's claim.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-11 13:34:38 UTC
Post by bigdog
prepped for autopsy at 7:17 which means it would have to have arrived at
the loading dock considerably earlier than that. Add to that fact that now
you've added a third casket arrival with your hilarious story about the
body being put back into the bronze casket and then shipped out, only to
arrive a second time. So that means if the body was being prepped for
autopsy at 7:17, the empty casket would have to have arrived much earlier
than that to allow time for all the casket switching and second arrivals
which you have postulated.
person shooting from that window is corroborated.
yet you are willing to believe that Loy Factor and Mac Wallace were up
there shooting based on nothing but somebody's claim.
You seem to base your belief on some kid who said the shooter was black.Post by mainframetech
corroborated, which Lipsey's isn't. So do you accept his statement of the
2 ambulances and the 'decoy'?
go away, which they would when the ambulance with the casket left. Now
don't ask that one again.
you?
transporting a casket. Here's a minute by minute schedule of the events
of the day. Check out that the Casket left the airport at 6:00pm and
http://www.businessinsider.com/kennedy-assassination-timeline-2013-11#620-pm-ct-23
It's really amazing the things you'll make up. Your whole scenario was
invented.
7:17pm has to be the earliest that the body got there.
That's not what the witness said. He said the body was already beingPost by bigdog
body was in one of them. He ALWAYS has said the body was not flown to
Bethesda. That is the part you want to ignore. Lipsey has also said from
his observations at the autopsy it was obvious to him JFK had been shot in
the BOH, blowing out the upper right side of the skull. You like to ignore
that too.
WRONG! I don't ignore it. I've simply seen better information that isPost by mainframetech
guess at stuff. I did not have to correct Lipsey's statements, I simple
recommended that you compare his statements with his statement of an
earlier time. He had changed his story quite a bit, and left out the part
about the 'decoy' ambulance which he had originally talked about.
According to Lipsey's initial account there were two ambulances and thePost by bigdog
WRONG and FALSE! You always get yourself in trouble when you try toPost by mainframetech
smoothing out things that got bumpy.
So once again you are going to "correct" a witness to make his account conform to your theories.Post by bigdog
statements or any statement afterward. He ALWAYS said the casket went by
ground transportation while the honor guard flew to Bethesda so they would
be present when the body arrived.
That's what he said. But he and general Wehle had the job ofPost by mainframetech
No much use. It seems Lipsey has forgotten his own statements closer
to the murder than this video.
It didn't make any sense for the general to say to Lipsey 'stay with
the body until it's in the ground'. It was going to be a couple days
before that would happen, and Lipsey was sure to have a bathroom call in
that time.
Lipsey left out all his talk of decoy ambulances and the attendant
events. He did mention that he and the general came to Bethesda on a
helicopter, but failed to note that there was casket with them.
Because there wasn't and Lipsey NEVER said there was. Not in his earliestNo much use. It seems Lipsey has forgotten his own statements closer
to the murder than this video.
It didn't make any sense for the general to say to Lipsey 'stay with
the body until it's in the ground'. It was going to be a couple days
before that would happen, and Lipsey was sure to have a bathroom call in
that time.
Lipsey left out all his talk of decoy ambulances and the attendant
events. He did mention that he and the general came to Bethesda on a
helicopter, but failed to note that there was casket with them.
statements or any statement afterward. He ALWAYS said the casket went by
ground transportation while the honor guard flew to Bethesda so they would
be present when the body arrived.
smoothing out things that got bumpy.
guess at stuff. I did not have to correct Lipsey's statements, I simple
recommended that you compare his statements with his statement of an
earlier time. He had changed his story quite a bit, and left out the part
about the 'decoy' ambulance which he had originally talked about.
body was in one of them. He ALWAYS has said the body was not flown to
Bethesda. That is the part you want to ignore. Lipsey has also said from
his observations at the autopsy it was obvious to him JFK had been shot in
the BOH, blowing out the upper right side of the skull. You like to ignore
that too.
corroborated, which Lipsey's isn't. So do you accept his statement of the
2 ambulances and the 'decoy'?
Post by bigdog
plane where it was too dark to see what was happening. Then you learned
the plane had no doors on that side. I have yet to see your substitution
for that original claim.
Then you haven't been watching. They simply waited for the crowds toPost by mainframetech
Your answer had always been they unloaded it on the opposite side of thePost by bigdog
casket from AF1 at Andrews without anybody seeing it.
That's been answered many times already.Post by mainframetech
They got the body to Bethesda 42
minutes BEFORE the decoy ambulance got there! So how do you think they
did that? There is only one answer, helicopter.
Still waiting for you to explain how they managed to unload a shippingThey got the body to Bethesda 42
minutes BEFORE the decoy ambulance got there! So how do you think they
did that? There is only one answer, helicopter.
casket from AF1 at Andrews without anybody seeing it.
plane where it was too dark to see what was happening. Then you learned
the plane had no doors on that side. I have yet to see your substitution
for that original claim.
go away, which they would when the ambulance with the casket left. Now
don't ask that one again.
Post by bigdog
stopped to meet with the congressional leaders who were gathered there,
and then after LBJ departed by helicopter, everyone there including all
those witnesses and cameras suddenly vanished. That nobody stayed around.
That AF1 was just left unguarded. And of course your conspirators had to
be able to count on all that happening.
I'm not aware of all that happening. How much of it was made up byPost by mainframetech
After the Bronze casket was
sent on its way, no one was going to stick around and wait to see if
anything else came out of AF1. That's when the SHIPPING casket would come
out.
So you think that after LBJ delivered his address to the nation and thenAfter the Bronze casket was
sent on its way, no one was going to stick around and wait to see if
anything else came out of AF1. That's when the SHIPPING casket would come
out.
stopped to meet with the congressional leaders who were gathered there,
and then after LBJ departed by helicopter, everyone there including all
those witnesses and cameras suddenly vanished. That nobody stayed around.
That AF1 was just left unguarded. And of course your conspirators had to
be able to count on all that happening.
you?
Post by bigdog
Even if all that had happened, the
ambulance would have had quite a head start to go from Andrews to Bethesda
and they would still need the time to unload your shipping casket from the
plane and load it on the helicopter. After all that, you still think your
shipping casket reached Bethesda 42 minutes before the ambulance with the
ornamental casket. According to Bing, the drive time from Andrews to
Bethesda is only 40 minutes and that is if you or I were driving it. With
a police escort and not having to make any traffic stops, it would take
considerably less time. Sorry, your scenario just does not compute.
Sorry, I read it that they took their time, as often happens withEven if all that had happened, the
ambulance would have had quite a head start to go from Andrews to Bethesda
and they would still need the time to unload your shipping casket from the
plane and load it on the helicopter. After all that, you still think your
shipping casket reached Bethesda 42 minutes before the ambulance with the
ornamental casket. According to Bing, the drive time from Andrews to
Bethesda is only 40 minutes and that is if you or I were driving it. With
a police escort and not having to make any traffic stops, it would take
considerably less time. Sorry, your scenario just does not compute.
transporting a casket. Here's a minute by minute schedule of the events
of the day. Check out that the Casket left the airport at 6:00pm and
http://www.businessinsider.com/kennedy-assassination-timeline-2013-11#620-pm-ct-23
It's really amazing the things you'll make up. Your whole scenario was
invented.
Post by bigdog
the ornamental casket arrived at 7:17. Sibert said that at 7:17 they began
preparations for the autopsy. That is the only reference by any witness to
7:17. You know all this yet you continue to try to propagate the myth that
the bronze casket arrived at 7:17 because some kook website made that
claim and you accepted the claim as fact.
OBVIOUSLY you cannot begin an autopsy until the body gets there, soPost by mainframetech
I know we have which is why I know you don't have an answer. Nobody saidPost by bigdog
Still waiting for you to quote a witness or a document that said the body
ARRIVED at Bethesda at 7:17.
That's an old argument and we've gone over it a number of times.Still waiting for you to quote a witness or a document that said the body
ARRIVED at Bethesda at 7:17.
the ornamental casket arrived at 7:17. Sibert said that at 7:17 they began
preparations for the autopsy. That is the only reference by any witness to
7:17. You know all this yet you continue to try to propagate the myth that
the bronze casket arrived at 7:17 because some kook website made that
claim and you accepted the claim as fact.
7:17pm has to be the earliest that the body got there.
prepped for autopsy at 7:17 which means it would have to have arrived at
the loading dock considerably earlier than that. Add to that fact that now
you've added a third casket arrival with your hilarious story about the
body being put back into the bronze casket and then shipped out, only to
arrive a second time. So that means if the body was being prepped for
autopsy at 7:17, the empty casket would have to have arrived much earlier
than that to allow time for all the casket switching and second arrivals
which you have postulated.
Post by mainframetech
There are places
in the story where the motorcade arrived at the main entrance at 7:07pm,
so that leaves time for the debarking of the family and the time for the
ambulance to go around back to the morgue and unload the empty casket.
If you go again to the minute-by-minute schedule of events, you'll see
they record the family getting to Bethesda at 7:00pm ET.
Cite this minute-by-minute schedule please.There are places
in the story where the motorcade arrived at the main entrance at 7:07pm,
so that leaves time for the debarking of the family and the time for the
ambulance to go around back to the morgue and unload the empty casket.
If you go again to the minute-by-minute schedule of events, you'll see
they record the family getting to Bethesda at 7:00pm ET.
Post by mainframetech
They're off by a few minutes, but that is close enough to make it
clear that the ambulance with the empty Bronze casket arrived long after
the SHIPPING casket with the body in it (6:35pm).
Was that the second arrival or the third arrival? <chuckle>They're off by a few minutes, but that is close enough to make it
clear that the ambulance with the empty Bronze casket arrived long after
the SHIPPING casket with the body in it (6:35pm).
Post by mainframetech
was discredited anyway.
Unless you want to argue the shooter wasn't a person, his sighting of aPost by bigdog
3 shells found at that window.
WRONG! Shells don't corroborate the sighting of a person. And BrennanPost by mainframetech
Brennan's sighting of the shooter was corroborated by the presence of thePost by bigdog
There was NO PHYSICAL evidence that described Oswald in the window on the 6th floor.Post by mainframetech
remind you of Howard Brennan.
Brennan was corroborated by physical evidence. O'Connor, not so much.Post by bigdog
made up his story. Of course you haven't. You want to believe what
O'Connor said so as far as you are concerned, his version is gospel.
O'Connor was corroborated. Lipsey wasn't. And it's easy for me toPost by mainframetech
Lipsey said that he helped get the body out of the casket and put it
on the table in the morgue, but the other men that did that didn't seem to
know he was there. He may have made that up too. His tale doesn't match
his own previous story, or with anyone else's stories.
I don't suppose you ever stopped to consider that people like O'ConnorLipsey said that he helped get the body out of the casket and put it
on the table in the morgue, but the other men that did that didn't seem to
know he was there. He may have made that up too. His tale doesn't match
his own previous story, or with anyone else's stories.
made up his story. Of course you haven't. You want to believe what
O'Connor said so as far as you are concerned, his version is gospel.
remind you of Howard Brennan.
3 shells found at that window.
was discredited anyway.
person shooting from that window is corroborated.
Post by mainframetech
the rifle or presences of prints in the TSBD prove that Oswald was in the
window with the MC rifle firing into the motorcade. There was however,
evidence that there were 2 men in the window of the 6th floor with a gun.
All that evidence isn't enough to convince you that Oswald was the shooterPost by bigdog
His ID of Oswald is corroborated by the
fact Oswald's rifle was found on that floor, the shells that were at that
window could only have been fired by Oswald's rifle, Oswald's fingerprints
were found on the boxes at that location oriented just as they would be if
facing down Elm St., fibers from his shirt matched the fibers on the butt
plate of the rifle, his fingerprints were found on a large paper bag and
that bag contained fibers matching the blanket he used to store his rifle
in at the Paine house. In short all the physical evidence is exactly what
we would expect it to be if Brennan's ID of Oswald was accurate. But of
course you will claim none of that proves Oswald was the shooter. None of
it BY ITSELF proves Oswald was the shooter. Collectively, it leaves no
doubt. The only way all that evidence would be present linking Oswald to
the shooting is if Oswald was the shooter.
COLLECTIVELY, none of the information relating to Oswald's ownership ofHis ID of Oswald is corroborated by the
fact Oswald's rifle was found on that floor, the shells that were at that
window could only have been fired by Oswald's rifle, Oswald's fingerprints
were found on the boxes at that location oriented just as they would be if
facing down Elm St., fibers from his shirt matched the fibers on the butt
plate of the rifle, his fingerprints were found on a large paper bag and
that bag contained fibers matching the blanket he used to store his rifle
in at the Paine house. In short all the physical evidence is exactly what
we would expect it to be if Brennan's ID of Oswald was accurate. But of
course you will claim none of that proves Oswald was the shooter. None of
it BY ITSELF proves Oswald was the shooter. Collectively, it leaves no
doubt. The only way all that evidence would be present linking Oswald to
the shooting is if Oswald was the shooter.
the rifle or presences of prints in the TSBD prove that Oswald was in the
window with the MC rifle firing into the motorcade. There was however,
evidence that there were 2 men in the window of the 6th floor with a gun.
yet you are willing to believe that Loy Factor and Mac Wallace were up
there shooting based on nothing but somebody's claim.
Was Oswald black? Or some half-blind guy who said Oswald was SITTING on
the window sill, which is physically impossible.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-09 19:40:52 UTC
Post by bigdog
body was in one of them. He ALWAYS has said the body was not flown to
Bethesda. That is the part you want to ignore. Lipsey has also said from
his observations at the autopsy it was obvious to him JFK had been shot in
the BOH, blowing out the upper right side of the skull. You like to ignore
that too.
plane where it was too dark to see what was happening. Then you learned
the plane had no doors on that side. I have yet to see your substitution
for that original claim.
stopped to meet with the congressional leaders who were gathered there,
and then after LBJ departed by helicopter, everyone there including all
those witnesses and cameras suddenly vanished. That nobody stayed around.
That AF1 was just left unguarded. And of course your conspirators had to
be able to count on all that happening. Even if all that had happened, the
ambulance would have had quite a head start to go from Andrews to Bethesda
and they would still need the time to unload your shipping casket from the
plane and load it on the helicopter. After all that, you still think your
shipping casket reached Bethesda 42 minutes before the ambulance with the
ornamental casket. According to Bing, the drive time from Andrews to
Bethesda is only 40 minutes and that is if you or I were driving it. With
a police escort and not having to make any traffic stops, it would take
considerably less time. Sorry, your scenario just does not compute.
the ornamental casket arrived at 7:17. Sibert said that at 7:17 they began
preparations for the autopsy. That is the only reference by any witness to
7:17. You know all this yet you continue to try to propagate the myth that
the bronze casket arrived at 7:17 because some kook website made that
claim and you accepted the claim as fact.
3 shells found at that window. His ID of Oswald is corroborated by the
fact Oswald's rifle was found on that floor, the shells that were at that
window could only have been fired by Oswald's rifle, Oswald's fingerprints
Illogical. Someone else could have fired his rifle. Brennan is unreliable.Post by mainframetech
guess at stuff. I did not have to correct Lipsey's statements, I simple
recommended that you compare his statements with his statement of an
earlier time. He had changed his story quite a bit, and left out the part
about the 'decoy' ambulance which he had originally talked about.
According to Lipsey's initial account there were two ambulances and thePost by bigdog
WRONG and FALSE! You always get yourself in trouble when you try toPost by mainframetech
smoothing out things that got bumpy.
So once again you are going to "correct" a witness to make his account conform to your theories.Post by bigdog
statements or any statement afterward. He ALWAYS said the casket went by
ground transportation while the honor guard flew to Bethesda so they would
be present when the body arrived.
That's what he said. But he and general Wehle had the job ofPost by mainframetech
No much use. It seems Lipsey has forgotten his own statements closer
to the murder than this video.
It didn't make any sense for the general to say to Lipsey 'stay with
the body until it's in the ground'. It was going to be a couple days
before that would happen, and Lipsey was sure to have a bathroom call in
that time.
Lipsey left out all his talk of decoy ambulances and the attendant
events. He did mention that he and the general came to Bethesda on a
helicopter, but failed to note that there was casket with them.
Because there wasn't and Lipsey NEVER said there was. Not in his earliestNo much use. It seems Lipsey has forgotten his own statements closer
to the murder than this video.
It didn't make any sense for the general to say to Lipsey 'stay with
the body until it's in the ground'. It was going to be a couple days
before that would happen, and Lipsey was sure to have a bathroom call in
that time.
Lipsey left out all his talk of decoy ambulances and the attendant
events. He did mention that he and the general came to Bethesda on a
helicopter, but failed to note that there was casket with them.
statements or any statement afterward. He ALWAYS said the casket went by
ground transportation while the honor guard flew to Bethesda so they would
be present when the body arrived.
smoothing out things that got bumpy.
guess at stuff. I did not have to correct Lipsey's statements, I simple
recommended that you compare his statements with his statement of an
earlier time. He had changed his story quite a bit, and left out the part
about the 'decoy' ambulance which he had originally talked about.
body was in one of them. He ALWAYS has said the body was not flown to
Bethesda. That is the part you want to ignore. Lipsey has also said from
his observations at the autopsy it was obvious to him JFK had been shot in
the BOH, blowing out the upper right side of the skull. You like to ignore
that too.
Post by mainframetech
Your answer had always been they unloaded it on the opposite side of thePost by bigdog
casket from AF1 at Andrews without anybody seeing it.
That's been answered many times already.Post by mainframetech
They got the body to Bethesda 42
minutes BEFORE the decoy ambulance got there! So how do you think they
did that? There is only one answer, helicopter.
Still waiting for you to explain how they managed to unload a shippingThey got the body to Bethesda 42
minutes BEFORE the decoy ambulance got there! So how do you think they
did that? There is only one answer, helicopter.
casket from AF1 at Andrews without anybody seeing it.
plane where it was too dark to see what was happening. Then you learned
the plane had no doors on that side. I have yet to see your substitution
for that original claim.
Post by mainframetech
After the Bronze casket was
sent on its way, no one was going to stick around and wait to see if
anything else came out of AF1. That's when the SHIPPING casket would come
out.
So you think that after LBJ delivered his address to the nation and thenAfter the Bronze casket was
sent on its way, no one was going to stick around and wait to see if
anything else came out of AF1. That's when the SHIPPING casket would come
out.
stopped to meet with the congressional leaders who were gathered there,
and then after LBJ departed by helicopter, everyone there including all
those witnesses and cameras suddenly vanished. That nobody stayed around.
That AF1 was just left unguarded. And of course your conspirators had to
be able to count on all that happening. Even if all that had happened, the
ambulance would have had quite a head start to go from Andrews to Bethesda
and they would still need the time to unload your shipping casket from the
plane and load it on the helicopter. After all that, you still think your
shipping casket reached Bethesda 42 minutes before the ambulance with the
ornamental casket. According to Bing, the drive time from Andrews to
Bethesda is only 40 minutes and that is if you or I were driving it. With
a police escort and not having to make any traffic stops, it would take
considerably less time. Sorry, your scenario just does not compute.
Post by mainframetech
I know we have which is why I know you don't have an answer. Nobody saidPost by bigdog
Still waiting for you to quote a witness or a document that said the body
ARRIVED at Bethesda at 7:17.
That's an old argument and we've gone over it a number of times.Still waiting for you to quote a witness or a document that said the body
ARRIVED at Bethesda at 7:17.
the ornamental casket arrived at 7:17. Sibert said that at 7:17 they began
preparations for the autopsy. That is the only reference by any witness to
7:17. You know all this yet you continue to try to propagate the myth that
the bronze casket arrived at 7:17 because some kook website made that
claim and you accepted the claim as fact.
Post by mainframetech
Brennan's sighting of the shooter was corroborated by the presence of thePost by bigdog
There was NO PHYSICAL evidence that described Oswald in the window on the 6th floor.Post by mainframetech
remind you of Howard Brennan.
Brennan was corroborated by physical evidence. O'Connor, not so much.Post by bigdog
made up his story. Of course you haven't. You want to believe what
O'Connor said so as far as you are concerned, his version is gospel.
O'Connor was corroborated. Lipsey wasn't. And it's easy for me toPost by mainframetech
Lipsey said that he helped get the body out of the casket and put it
on the table in the morgue, but the other men that did that didn't seem to
know he was there. He may have made that up too. His tale doesn't match
his own previous story, or with anyone else's stories.
I don't suppose you ever stopped to consider that people like O'ConnorLipsey said that he helped get the body out of the casket and put it
on the table in the morgue, but the other men that did that didn't seem to
know he was there. He may have made that up too. His tale doesn't match
his own previous story, or with anyone else's stories.
made up his story. Of course you haven't. You want to believe what
O'Connor said so as far as you are concerned, his version is gospel.
remind you of Howard Brennan.
3 shells found at that window. His ID of Oswald is corroborated by the
fact Oswald's rifle was found on that floor, the shells that were at that
window could only have been fired by Oswald's rifle, Oswald's fingerprints
Post by bigdog
were found on the boxes at that location oriented just as they would be if
facing down Elm St., fibers from his shirt matched the fibers on the butt
plate of the rifle, his fingerprints were found on a large paper bag and
that bag contained fibers matching the blanket he used to store his rifle
We've been over these false ideas thousands of times and you just keepwere found on the boxes at that location oriented just as they would be if
facing down Elm St., fibers from his shirt matched the fibers on the butt
plate of the rifle, his fingerprints were found on a large paper bag and
that bag contained fibers matching the blanket he used to store his rifle
repeating them like a Mantra.
Post by bigdog
in at the Paine house. In short all the physical evidence is exactly what
we would expect it to be if Brennan's ID of Oswald was accurate. But of
course you will claim none of that proves Oswald was the shooter. None of
it BY ITSELF proves Oswald was the shooter. Collectively, it leaves no
doubt. The only way all that evidence would be present linking Oswald to
the shooting is if Oswald was the shooter.
in at the Paine house. In short all the physical evidence is exactly what
we would expect it to be if Brennan's ID of Oswald was accurate. But of
course you will claim none of that proves Oswald was the shooter. None of
it BY ITSELF proves Oswald was the shooter. Collectively, it leaves no
doubt. The only way all that evidence would be present linking Oswald to
the shooting is if Oswald was the shooter.
deke
2018-07-03 04:24:40 UTC
Although he strongly holds the LN position, he said something very
interesting - that he helped remove the president's body from a body bag.
The president left Dallas wrapped in sheets. This corroborates navy
technician Paul O'Connor's statement that the body was removed from a
cheap shipping casket and was contained in a body bag, not sheets. It's
too bad Lipsey didn't describe the casket.
interesting - that he helped remove the president's body from a body bag.
The president left Dallas wrapped in sheets. This corroborates navy
technician Paul O'Connor's statement that the body was removed from a
cheap shipping casket and was contained in a body bag, not sheets. It's
too bad Lipsey didn't describe the casket.
mainframetech
2018-07-03 21:22:03 UTC
Post by deke
Although he strongly holds the LN position, he said something very
interesting - that he helped remove the president's body from a body bag.
The president left Dallas wrapped in sheets. This corroborates navy
technician Paul O'Connor's statement that the body was removed from a
cheap shipping casket and was contained in a body bag, not sheets. It's
too bad Lipsey didn't describe the casket.
One of the problems was that the caskets made 3 arrivals at the morgue!Although he strongly holds the LN position, he said something very
interesting - that he helped remove the president's body from a body bag.
The president left Dallas wrapped in sheets. This corroborates navy
technician Paul O'Connor's statement that the body was removed from a
cheap shipping casket and was contained in a body bag, not sheets. It's
too bad Lipsey didn't describe the casket.
The first was the shipping casket, which contained the real body of JFK as
per the witnesses under oath. That arrival was at 6:35pm documented.
The 2 other arrivals were the Bronze casket, the first of which occurred
at about 7:17pm at the morgue. It had arrived from the road trip at the
main entrance of Bethesda at about 7:07pm and the family had debarked and
gone up to the 17th floor to the VIP suite to wait. The FBI and SS agents
were with that motorcade, and the ambulance went around the back of the
building to the morgue loading dock.
There was later a third arrival where the Bronze casket was sent out
with the body now in it where it should have been, and the honor guard
brought the ambulance back and the casket made a third entrance to the
morgue. This allowed any who saw the body to come out of the Bronze
casket to say that's what they saw. But it confused all the other events:
https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/kennedy-casket-conspiracy/
Chris
bigdog
2018-07-04 13:45:22 UTC
Post by mainframetech
The first was the shipping casket, which contained the real body of JFK as
per the witnesses under oath. That arrival was at 6:35pm documented.
The 2 other arrivals were the Bronze casket, the first of which occurred
at about 7:17pm at the morgue. It had arrived from the road trip at the
main entrance of Bethesda at about 7:07pm and the family had debarked and
gone up to the 17th floor to the VIP suite to wait. The FBI and SS agents
were with that motorcade, and the ambulance went around the back of the
building to the morgue loading dock.
There was later a third arrival where the Bronze casket was sent out
with the body now in it where it should have been, and the honor guard
brought the ambulance back and the casket made a third entrance to the
morgue. This allowed any who saw the body to come out of the Bronze
https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/kennedy-casket-conspiracy/
Pure fantasy.Post by deke
Although he strongly holds the LN position, he said something very
interesting - that he helped remove the president's body from a body bag.
The president left Dallas wrapped in sheets. This corroborates navy
technician Paul O'Connor's statement that the body was removed from a
cheap shipping casket and was contained in a body bag, not sheets. It's
too bad Lipsey didn't describe the casket.
One of the problems was that the caskets made 3 arrivals at the morgue!Although he strongly holds the LN position, he said something very
interesting - that he helped remove the president's body from a body bag.
The president left Dallas wrapped in sheets. This corroborates navy
technician Paul O'Connor's statement that the body was removed from a
cheap shipping casket and was contained in a body bag, not sheets. It's
too bad Lipsey didn't describe the casket.
The first was the shipping casket, which contained the real body of JFK as
per the witnesses under oath. That arrival was at 6:35pm documented.
The 2 other arrivals were the Bronze casket, the first of which occurred
at about 7:17pm at the morgue. It had arrived from the road trip at the
main entrance of Bethesda at about 7:07pm and the family had debarked and
gone up to the 17th floor to the VIP suite to wait. The FBI and SS agents
were with that motorcade, and the ambulance went around the back of the
building to the morgue loading dock.
There was later a third arrival where the Bronze casket was sent out
with the body now in it where it should have been, and the honor guard
brought the ambulance back and the casket made a third entrance to the
morgue. This allowed any who saw the body to come out of the Bronze
https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/kennedy-casket-conspiracy/
mainframetech
2018-07-06 01:33:15 UTC
Post by bigdog
Must be talking about the WCR again.Post by mainframetech
The first was the shipping casket, which contained the real body of JFK as
per the witnesses under oath. That arrival was at 6:35pm documented.
The 2 other arrivals were the Bronze casket, the first of which occurred
at about 7:17pm at the morgue. It had arrived from the road trip at the
main entrance of Bethesda at about 7:07pm and the family had debarked and
gone up to the 17th floor to the VIP suite to wait. The FBI and SS agents
were with that motorcade, and the ambulance went around the back of the
building to the morgue loading dock.
There was later a third arrival where the Bronze casket was sent out
with the body now in it where it should have been, and the honor guard
brought the ambulance back and the casket made a third entrance to the
morgue. This allowed any who saw the body to come out of the Bronze
https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/kennedy-casket-conspiracy/
Pure fantasy.Post by deke
Although he strongly holds the LN position, he said something very
interesting - that he helped remove the president's body from a body bag.
The president left Dallas wrapped in sheets. This corroborates navy
technician Paul O'Connor's statement that the body was removed from a
cheap shipping casket and was contained in a body bag, not sheets. It's
too bad Lipsey didn't describe the casket.
One of the problems was that the caskets made 3 arrivals at the morgue!Although he strongly holds the LN position, he said something very
interesting - that he helped remove the president's body from a body bag.
The president left Dallas wrapped in sheets. This corroborates navy
technician Paul O'Connor's statement that the body was removed from a
cheap shipping casket and was contained in a body bag, not sheets. It's
too bad Lipsey didn't describe the casket.
The first was the shipping casket, which contained the real body of JFK as
per the witnesses under oath. That arrival was at 6:35pm documented.
The 2 other arrivals were the Bronze casket, the first of which occurred
at about 7:17pm at the morgue. It had arrived from the road trip at the
main entrance of Bethesda at about 7:07pm and the family had debarked and
gone up to the 17th floor to the VIP suite to wait. The FBI and SS agents
were with that motorcade, and the ambulance went around the back of the
building to the morgue loading dock.
There was later a third arrival where the Bronze casket was sent out
with the body now in it where it should have been, and the honor guard
brought the ambulance back and the casket made a third entrance to the
morgue. This allowed any who saw the body to come out of the Bronze
https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/kennedy-casket-conspiracy/
Chris
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-07-03 04:28:01 UTC
Most of what he recites refutes the Lifton body switching theory but he
does repeat the claim/belief that JFK was in a "body bag" when he was
removed from the casket.
One of the explanations that I've read (I think it was the late conspiracy
author Harrison Livingstone who suggested it) for this was that the
plastic mattress or cover that was placed underneath JFK to prevent the
blood from dripping onto the casket stuck to his body. So it had to be
peeled off.
But he does say he lifted the casket from the ambulance limo, took it into
the morgue and helped remove JFK's body from it.
does repeat the claim/belief that JFK was in a "body bag" when he was
removed from the casket.
One of the explanations that I've read (I think it was the late conspiracy
author Harrison Livingstone who suggested it) for this was that the
plastic mattress or cover that was placed underneath JFK to prevent the
blood from dripping onto the casket stuck to his body. So it had to be
peeled off.
But he does say he lifted the casket from the ambulance limo, took it into
the morgue and helped remove JFK's body from it.
mainframetech
2018-07-03 21:21:24 UTC
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Most of what he recites refutes the Lifton body switching theory but he
does repeat the claim/belief that JFK was in a "body bag" when he was
removed from the casket.
One of the explanations that I've read (I think it was the late conspiracy
author Harrison Livingstone who suggested it) for this was that the
plastic mattress or cover that was placed underneath JFK to prevent the
blood from dripping onto the casket stuck to his body. So it had to be
peeled off.
But he does say he lifted the casket from the ambulance limo, took it into
the morgue and helped remove JFK's body from it.
Her lied. A man named Edward Reed did that when the SHIPPING casketMost of what he recites refutes the Lifton body switching theory but he
does repeat the claim/belief that JFK was in a "body bag" when he was
removed from the casket.
One of the explanations that I've read (I think it was the late conspiracy
author Harrison Livingstone who suggested it) for this was that the
plastic mattress or cover that was placed underneath JFK to prevent the
blood from dripping onto the casket stuck to his body. So it had to be
peeled off.
But he does say he lifted the casket from the ambulance limo, took it into
the morgue and helped remove JFK's body from it.
was placed on the floor in the morgue. He identified JFK as the body in
that casket. Compare the video you just saw of Richard Lipsey to this
statement of his:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
While the interfview shows Lipsey to have a problem with his facts, it
does speak about the decoy ambulance which carried a casket with no one in
it. He also says at one point:
"We had a decoy hearse because we knew there was a mob waiting at Bethesda
Naval Hospital. So we got in a couple of these helicopters with our honor
guard when they left and flew over to the hospital to get there before
they did. And when they came in, one of the hearses went right up to the
front door. All of the crowd, of course, rushed over there. The one with
the body in it went around to the back where the morgue was and we
unloaded it. We met them in the back and unloaded it right there to avoid
the news media and the crowd and everything else.
Q: The body was brought in the rear?
LIPSEY: The body was brought in the back door, backed right up to the
loading ramp right immediately next to the morgue."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
While Lipsey and the general went by helicopter, the shipping casket
had to go with them, since the body arrived at the morgue 42 minutes
before the Bronze casket that was traveling with the family and all the
agents.
If there is any confusion or doubt, let me know. The info above is all
based on testimony.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-04 13:42:49 UTC
Post by mainframetech
was placed on the floor in the morgue. He identified JFK as the body in
that casket. Compare the video you just saw of Richard Lipsey to this
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
While the interfview shows Lipsey to have a problem with his facts, it
does speak about the decoy ambulance which carried a casket with no one in
"We had a decoy hearse because we knew there was a mob waiting at Bethesda
Naval Hospital. So we got in a couple of these helicopters with our honor
False SHOW me the mob.Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Most of what he recites refutes the Lifton body switching theory but he
does repeat the claim/belief that JFK was in a "body bag" when he was
removed from the casket.
One of the explanations that I've read (I think it was the late conspiracy
author Harrison Livingstone who suggested it) for this was that the
plastic mattress or cover that was placed underneath JFK to prevent the
blood from dripping onto the casket stuck to his body. So it had to be
peeled off.
But he does say he lifted the casket from the ambulance limo, took it into
the morgue and helped remove JFK's body from it.
Her lied. A man named Edward Reed did that when the SHIPPING casketMost of what he recites refutes the Lifton body switching theory but he
does repeat the claim/belief that JFK was in a "body bag" when he was
removed from the casket.
One of the explanations that I've read (I think it was the late conspiracy
author Harrison Livingstone who suggested it) for this was that the
plastic mattress or cover that was placed underneath JFK to prevent the
blood from dripping onto the casket stuck to his body. So it had to be
peeled off.
But he does say he lifted the casket from the ambulance limo, took it into
the morgue and helped remove JFK's body from it.
was placed on the floor in the morgue. He identified JFK as the body in
that casket. Compare the video you just saw of Richard Lipsey to this
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
While the interfview shows Lipsey to have a problem with his facts, it
does speak about the decoy ambulance which carried a casket with no one in
"We had a decoy hearse because we knew there was a mob waiting at Bethesda
Naval Hospital. So we got in a couple of these helicopters with our honor
Post by mainframetech
guard when they left and flew over to the hospital to get there before
they did. And when they came in, one of the hearses went right up to the
front door. All of the crowd, of course, rushed over there. The one with
the body in it went around to the back where the morgue was and we
unloaded it. We met them in the back and unloaded it right there to avoid
the news media and the crowd and everything else.
Q: The body was brought in the rear?
LIPSEY: The body was brought in the back door, backed right up to the
loading ramp right immediately next to the morgue."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
While Lipsey and the general went by helicopter, the shipping casket
had to go with them, since the body arrived at the morgue 42 minutes
before the Bronze casket that was traveling with the family and all the
agents.
If there is any confusion or doubt, let me know. The info above is all
based on testimony.
Chris
How many false caskets do you need? Do they all have to have the handlesguard when they left and flew over to the hospital to get there before
they did. And when they came in, one of the hearses went right up to the
front door. All of the crowd, of course, rushed over there. The one with
the body in it went around to the back where the morgue was and we
unloaded it. We met them in the back and unloaded it right there to avoid
the news media and the crowd and everything else.
Q: The body was brought in the rear?
LIPSEY: The body was brought in the back door, backed right up to the
loading ramp right immediately next to the morgue."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
While Lipsey and the general went by helicopter, the shipping casket
had to go with them, since the body arrived at the morgue 42 minutes
before the Bronze casket that was traveling with the family and all the
agents.
If there is any confusion or doubt, let me know. The info above is all
based on testimony.
Chris
broken off to mstch each other?
Did the funeral home sell caskets with the handles broken off?
bigdog
2018-07-04 01:40:02 UTC
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Most of what he recites refutes the Lifton body switching theory but he
does repeat the claim/belief that JFK was in a "body bag" when he was
removed from the casket.
One of the explanations that I've read (I think it was the late conspiracy
author Harrison Livingstone who suggested it) for this was that the
plastic mattress or cover that was placed underneath JFK to prevent the
blood from dripping onto the casket stuck to his body. So it had to be
peeled off.
But he does say he lifted the casket from the ambulance limo, took it into
the morgue and helped remove JFK's body from it.
I can only imagine that by the time the body arrived at Bethesda it was aMost of what he recites refutes the Lifton body switching theory but he
does repeat the claim/belief that JFK was in a "body bag" when he was
removed from the casket.
One of the explanations that I've read (I think it was the late conspiracy
author Harrison Livingstone who suggested it) for this was that the
plastic mattress or cover that was placed underneath JFK to prevent the
blood from dripping onto the casket stuck to his body. So it had to be
peeled off.
But he does say he lifted the casket from the ambulance limo, took it into
the morgue and helped remove JFK's body from it.
gory mess which had no doubt also made a mess of the interior of the
casket.
mainframetech
2018-07-05 02:34:23 UTC
Post by bigdog
If you check the testimony of Edward Reed, X-ray Technician, hePost by Steve M. Galbraith
Most of what he recites refutes the Lifton body switching theory but he
does repeat the claim/belief that JFK was in a "body bag" when he was
removed from the casket.
Most of what he recites refutes the Lifton body switching theory but he
does repeat the claim/belief that JFK was in a "body bag" when he was
removed from the casket.
helped bring in the body and he saw it was JFK when the SHIPPING casket
was opened in the morgue. He helped put the body on the table. He
doesn't seem to mention any Richard Lipsey present.
Post by bigdog
gory mess which had no doubt also made a mess of the interior of the
casket.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
One of the explanations that I've read (I think it was the late conspiracy
author Harrison Livingstone who suggested it) for this was that the
plastic mattress or cover that was placed underneath JFK to prevent the
blood from dripping onto the casket stuck to his body. So it had to be
peeled off.
But he does say he lifted the casket from the ambulance limo, took it into
the morgue and helped remove JFK's body from it.
I can only imagine that by the time the body arrived at Bethesda it was aOne of the explanations that I've read (I think it was the late conspiracy
author Harrison Livingstone who suggested it) for this was that the
plastic mattress or cover that was placed underneath JFK to prevent the
blood from dripping onto the casket stuck to his body. So it had to be
peeled off.
But he does say he lifted the casket from the ambulance limo, took it into
the morgue and helped remove JFK's body from it.
gory mess which had no doubt also made a mess of the interior of the
casket.
bigdog
2018-07-06 01:20:57 UTC
Post by mainframetech
If you check the testimony of Edward Reed, X-ray Technician, he
helped bring in the body and he saw it was JFK when the SHIPPING casket
was opened in the morgue. He helped put the body on the table. He
doesn't seem to mention any Richard Lipsey present.
Lipsey doesn't mention Reed either so by your reasoning that means ReedPost by Steve M. Galbraith
Most of what he recites refutes the Lifton body switching theory but he
does repeat the claim/belief that JFK was in a "body bag" when he was
removed from the casket.
Most of what he recites refutes the Lifton body switching theory but he
does repeat the claim/belief that JFK was in a "body bag" when he was
removed from the casket.
helped bring in the body and he saw it was JFK when the SHIPPING casket
was opened in the morgue. He helped put the body on the table. He
doesn't seem to mention any Richard Lipsey present.
wasn't there.
mainframetech
2018-07-07 12:55:32 UTC
Post by bigdog
wasn't there.
How easily you forget my point because it disproves you contention.Post by mainframetech
If you check the testimony of Edward Reed, X-ray Technician, he
helped bring in the body and he saw it was JFK when the SHIPPING casket
was opened in the morgue. He helped put the body on the table. He
doesn't seem to mention any Richard Lipsey present.
Lipsey doesn't mention Reed either so by your reasoning that means ReedPost by Steve M. Galbraith
Most of what he recites refutes the Lifton body switching theory but he
does repeat the claim/belief that JFK was in a "body bag" when he was
removed from the casket.
Most of what he recites refutes the Lifton body switching theory but he
does repeat the claim/belief that JFK was in a "body bag" when he was
removed from the casket.
helped bring in the body and he saw it was JFK when the SHIPPING casket
was opened in the morgue. He helped put the body on the table. He
doesn't seem to mention any Richard Lipsey present.
wasn't there.
Edward Reed had others that corroborated what he said. No one
corroborated what Lipsey said, and half of what he said disagreed with his
own statement made closer to the event itself. Remember that I suggested
that you compare Lipsey's statements in the video to his statements in the
HSCA article:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
Chris
bigdog
2018-07-07 22:26:37 UTC
Post by mainframetech
Edward Reed had others that corroborated what he said. No one
corroborated what Lipsey said, and half of what he said disagreed with his
own statement made closer to the event itself. Remember that I suggested
that you compare Lipsey's statements in the video to his statements in the
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
Some interesting quotes from that 1978 interview, Lipsey's earliest on thePost by bigdog
wasn't there.
How easily you forget my point because it disproves you contention.Post by mainframetech
If you check the testimony of Edward Reed, X-ray Technician, he
helped bring in the body and he saw it was JFK when the SHIPPING casket
was opened in the morgue. He helped put the body on the table. He
doesn't seem to mention any Richard Lipsey present.
Lipsey doesn't mention Reed either so by your reasoning that means ReedPost by Steve M. Galbraith
Most of what he recites refutes the Lifton body switching theory but he
does repeat the claim/belief that JFK was in a "body bag" when he was
removed from the casket.
Most of what he recites refutes the Lifton body switching theory but he
does repeat the claim/belief that JFK was in a "body bag" when he was
removed from the casket.
helped bring in the body and he saw it was JFK when the SHIPPING casket
was opened in the morgue. He helped put the body on the table. He
doesn't seem to mention any Richard Lipsey present.
wasn't there.
Edward Reed had others that corroborated what he said. No one
corroborated what Lipsey said, and half of what he said disagreed with his
own statement made closer to the event itself. Remember that I suggested
that you compare Lipsey's statements in the video to his statements in the
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
record observations:
"Q: I have a question. How did you go from when Air Force One landed? How
did you go from Andrews to Bethesda itself?
LIPSEY: We accompanied General Wehle in a helicopter.
Q: In a helicopter. While the body was being driven?
LIPSEY: Right."
"Q: Okay, getting back to the bullets themselves, not the bullets
themselves but the entrances, can you just go over again the entrances as
you remember them?
LIPSEY: Alright, as I remember them there was one bullet that went in the
back of the head that exited and blew away part of his face. And that was
sort of high up, not high up but like this little crown on the back of
your head right there, three or four inches above your neck. And then the
other one entered at more of less the top of the neck, the other one
entered more of less at the bottom of the neck.
Q: Okay, so that would be up where the crown, not the top of the head?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the rear crown.
Q: Where that point might be on the skull bone?
LIPSEY: Exactly.
Q: Then one approximately several inches lower?
LIPSEY: Well not several but two or three inches lower.
Q: Still in the head? Or what we would call…
LIPSEY: Closer to the neck.
Q: Closer to the neck? And than one in the neck?
LIPSEY: In the lower neck region.
Q: In the back?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the very -- right as the ....
Q: Let's go back over things. Sometimes visual aids you forget. Okay, and
then according to the autopsy doctors they feel the one that entered in the
skull, in the rear of the head, exited the right side of the head?
LIPSEY: The right front, you know, the face. Not the right top, the right
front. The facial part of your face. In other words...
Q: Did that destroy his face at all? You say Presidents Kennedy, was his
face distorted?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the right side. If you looked at him straight. If you looked
at him from the left you couldn’t see anything. If you looked at him
from the right side it was just physically part of it blown away.
Q: So that would be right here?
LIPSEY: Yeah, behind the eye and everything.
Q: Behind the eye? Was it all hair region or was it part of the actual face?
LIPSEY: To the best of my recollection it was part of the hair region and
part of the face region"
There are few discrepancies from the two accounts. In both cases he was
being interviewed so he was responding to the questions asked. Different
questions are going to draw different answers. If he didn't mention
something in one interview that he had in the other it just means he
wasn't asked about that particular item. The only discrepancy I noticed
was a minor one. In the 1978 interview he said he was present for most of
the autopsy, occasionally getting spelled by General Wehle. In the later
interview he said he was present for the entire autopsy, not mentioning
the occasional breaks he took. In both interviews he described the wounds
the same way. Two shot entered from behind. The head shot had exited from
the front right.
mainframetech
2018-07-09 13:59:06 UTC
Post by bigdog
"Q: I have a question. How did you go from when Air Force One landed? How
did you go from Andrews to Bethesda itself?
LIPSEY: We accompanied General Wehle in a helicopter.
Q: In a helicopter. While the body was being driven?
LIPSEY: Right."
"Q: Okay, getting back to the bullets themselves, not the bullets
themselves but the entrances, can you just go over again the entrances as
you remember them?
LIPSEY: Alright, as I remember them there was one bullet that went in the
back of the head that exited and blew away part of his face. And that was
sort of high up, not high up but like this little crown on the back of
your head right there, three or four inches above your neck. And then the
other one entered at more of less the top of the neck, the other one
entered more of less at the bottom of the neck.
Q: Okay, so that would be up where the crown, not the top of the head?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the rear crown.
Q: Where that point might be on the skull bone?
LIPSEY: Exactly.
Q: Then one approximately several inches lower?
LIPSEY: Well not several but two or three inches lower.
Q: Still in the head? Or what we would call…
LIPSEY: Closer to the neck.
Q: Closer to the neck? And than one in the neck?
LIPSEY: In the lower neck region.
Q: In the back?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the very -- right as the ....
Q: Let's go back over things. Sometimes visual aids you forget. Okay, and
then according to the autopsy doctors they feel the one that entered in the
skull, in the rear of the head, exited the right side of the head?
LIPSEY: The right front, you know, the face. Not the right top, the right
front. The facial part of your face. In other words...
Q: Did that destroy his face at all? You say Presidents Kennedy, was his
face distorted?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the right side. If you looked at him straight. If you looked
at him from the left you couldn’t see anything. If you looked at him
from the right side it was just physically part of it blown away.
Q: So that would be right here?
LIPSEY: Yeah, behind the eye and everything.
Q: Behind the eye? Was it all hair region or was it part of the actual face?
LIPSEY: To the best of my recollection it was part of the hair region and
part of the face region"
There are few discrepancies from the two accounts. In both cases he was
being interviewed so he was responding to the questions asked. Different
questions are going to draw different answers. If he didn't mention
something in one interview that he had in the other it just means he
wasn't asked about that particular item. The only discrepancy I noticed
was a minor one. In the 1978 interview he said he was present for most of
the autopsy, occasionally getting spelled by General Wehle. In the later
interview he said he was present for the entire autopsy, not mentioning
the occasional breaks he took. In both interviews he described the wounds
the same way. Two shot entered from behind. The head shot had exited from
the front right.
OK. Let's look at that bunch of statements. He is saying that partlyPost by mainframetech
Edward Reed had others that corroborated what he said. No one
corroborated what Lipsey said, and half of what he said disagreed with his
own statement made closer to the event itself. Remember that I suggested
that you compare Lipsey's statements in the video to his statements in the
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
Some interesting quotes from that 1978 interview, Lipsey's earliest on thePost by bigdog
wasn't there.
How easily you forget my point because it disproves you contention.Post by mainframetech
If you check the testimony of Edward Reed, X-ray Technician, he
helped bring in the body and he saw it was JFK when the SHIPPING casket
was opened in the morgue. He helped put the body on the table. He
doesn't seem to mention any Richard Lipsey present.
Lipsey doesn't mention Reed either so by your reasoning that means ReedPost by Steve M. Galbraith
Most of what he recites refutes the Lifton body switching theory but he
does repeat the claim/belief that JFK was in a "body bag" when he was
removed from the casket.
Most of what he recites refutes the Lifton body switching theory but he
does repeat the claim/belief that JFK was in a "body bag" when he was
removed from the casket.
helped bring in the body and he saw it was JFK when the SHIPPING casket
was opened in the morgue. He helped put the body on the table. He
doesn't seem to mention any Richard Lipsey present.
wasn't there.
Edward Reed had others that corroborated what he said. No one
corroborated what Lipsey said, and half of what he said disagreed with his
own statement made closer to the event itself. Remember that I suggested
that you compare Lipsey's statements in the video to his statements in the
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
"Q: I have a question. How did you go from when Air Force One landed? How
did you go from Andrews to Bethesda itself?
LIPSEY: We accompanied General Wehle in a helicopter.
Q: In a helicopter. While the body was being driven?
LIPSEY: Right."
"Q: Okay, getting back to the bullets themselves, not the bullets
themselves but the entrances, can you just go over again the entrances as
you remember them?
LIPSEY: Alright, as I remember them there was one bullet that went in the
back of the head that exited and blew away part of his face. And that was
sort of high up, not high up but like this little crown on the back of
your head right there, three or four inches above your neck. And then the
other one entered at more of less the top of the neck, the other one
entered more of less at the bottom of the neck.
Q: Okay, so that would be up where the crown, not the top of the head?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the rear crown.
Q: Where that point might be on the skull bone?
LIPSEY: Exactly.
Q: Then one approximately several inches lower?
LIPSEY: Well not several but two or three inches lower.
Q: Still in the head? Or what we would call…
LIPSEY: Closer to the neck.
Q: Closer to the neck? And than one in the neck?
LIPSEY: In the lower neck region.
Q: In the back?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the very -- right as the ....
Q: Let's go back over things. Sometimes visual aids you forget. Okay, and
then according to the autopsy doctors they feel the one that entered in the
skull, in the rear of the head, exited the right side of the head?
LIPSEY: The right front, you know, the face. Not the right top, the right
front. The facial part of your face. In other words...
Q: Did that destroy his face at all? You say Presidents Kennedy, was his
face distorted?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the right side. If you looked at him straight. If you looked
at him from the left you couldn’t see anything. If you looked at him
from the right side it was just physically part of it blown away.
Q: So that would be right here?
LIPSEY: Yeah, behind the eye and everything.
Q: Behind the eye? Was it all hair region or was it part of the actual face?
LIPSEY: To the best of my recollection it was part of the hair region and
part of the face region"
There are few discrepancies from the two accounts. In both cases he was
being interviewed so he was responding to the questions asked. Different
questions are going to draw different answers. If he didn't mention
something in one interview that he had in the other it just means he
wasn't asked about that particular item. The only discrepancy I noticed
was a minor one. In the 1978 interview he said he was present for most of
the autopsy, occasionally getting spelled by General Wehle. In the later
interview he said he was present for the entire autopsy, not mentioning
the occasional breaks he took. In both interviews he described the wounds
the same way. Two shot entered from behind. The head shot had exited from
the front right.
the face was destroyed (right side). If the autopsy photos are to be
believed, there was no damage to that area. He said what he heard the
pathologists say, which is that 2 bullets struck the BOH, yet when we look
at the autopsy photo of the BOH, there's nothing there:
Loading Image...
Go ahead, look for the bullet entry! When you can't find it, you'll
have to call Lipsey a liar.
And don't forget his mismatch in his HSCA statement and his video.
More lies.
Now here's a final statement from Lipsey, since you're so determined to
use him as a star witness:
"The ceremonial troop in Washington had been arranged to meet the body at
Andrews. Put it in a hearse. We had a decoy hearse because we knew there
was a mob waiting at Bethesda Naval Hospital. So we got in a couple of
these helicopters with our honor guard when they left and flew over to the
hospital to get there before they did. And when they came in, one of the
hearses went right up to the front door. All of the crowd, of course,
rushed over there. The one with the body in it went around to the back
where the morgue was and we unloaded it. We met them in the back and
unloaded it right there to avoid the news media and the crowd and
everything else."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
And while Lipsey said the casket went by road, there was no choice that
it went by helicopter because it got to the morgue 42 minutes BEFORE the
empty Bronze casket. Lipsey has clearly said there were 2 ambulances, one
was 'decoy', and one went to the back door with the body, and the other
went to the main entrance.
Chris
bigdog
2018-07-10 14:19:41 UTC
Post by mainframetech
the face was destroyed (right side). If the autopsy photos are to be
believed, there was no damage to that area.
We see in the Z-film that the bone flap above the ear hung down over thePost by bigdog
"Q: I have a question. How did you go from when Air Force One landed? How
did you go from Andrews to Bethesda itself?
LIPSEY: We accompanied General Wehle in a helicopter.
Q: In a helicopter. While the body was being driven?
LIPSEY: Right."
"Q: Okay, getting back to the bullets themselves, not the bullets
themselves but the entrances, can you just go over again the entrances as
you remember them?
LIPSEY: Alright, as I remember them there was one bullet that went in the
back of the head that exited and blew away part of his face. And that was
sort of high up, not high up but like this little crown on the back of
your head right there, three or four inches above your neck. And then the
other one entered at more of less the top of the neck, the other one
entered more of less at the bottom of the neck.
Q: Okay, so that would be up where the crown, not the top of the head?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the rear crown.
Q: Where that point might be on the skull bone?
LIPSEY: Exactly.
Q: Then one approximately several inches lower?
LIPSEY: Well not several but two or three inches lower.
Q: Still in the head? Or what we would call…
LIPSEY: Closer to the neck.
Q: Closer to the neck? And than one in the neck?
LIPSEY: In the lower neck region.
Q: In the back?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the very -- right as the ....
Q: Let's go back over things. Sometimes visual aids you forget. Okay, and
then according to the autopsy doctors they feel the one that entered in the
skull, in the rear of the head, exited the right side of the head?
LIPSEY: The right front, you know, the face. Not the right top, the right
front. The facial part of your face. In other words...
Q: Did that destroy his face at all? You say Presidents Kennedy, was his
face distorted?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the right side. If you looked at him straight. If you looked
at him from the left you couldn’t see anything. If you looked at him
from the right side it was just physically part of it blown away.
Q: So that would be right here?
LIPSEY: Yeah, behind the eye and everything.
Q: Behind the eye? Was it all hair region or was it part of the actual face?
LIPSEY: To the best of my recollection it was part of the hair region and
part of the face region"
There are few discrepancies from the two accounts. In both cases he was
being interviewed so he was responding to the questions asked. Different
questions are going to draw different answers. If he didn't mention
something in one interview that he had in the other it just means he
wasn't asked about that particular item. The only discrepancy I noticed
was a minor one. In the 1978 interview he said he was present for most of
the autopsy, occasionally getting spelled by General Wehle. In the later
interview he said he was present for the entire autopsy, not mentioning
the occasional breaks he took. In both interviews he described the wounds
the same way. Two shot entered from behind. The head shot had exited from
the front right.
OK. Let's look at that bunch of statements. He is saying that partlyPost by mainframetech
Edward Reed had others that corroborated what he said. No one
corroborated what Lipsey said, and half of what he said disagreed with his
own statement made closer to the event itself. Remember that I suggested
that you compare Lipsey's statements in the video to his statements in the
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
Some interesting quotes from that 1978 interview, Lipsey's earliest on thePost by bigdog
wasn't there.
How easily you forget my point because it disproves you contention.Post by mainframetech
If you check the testimony of Edward Reed, X-ray Technician, he
helped bring in the body and he saw it was JFK when the SHIPPING casket
was opened in the morgue. He helped put the body on the table. He
doesn't seem to mention any Richard Lipsey present.
Lipsey doesn't mention Reed either so by your reasoning that means ReedPost by Steve M. Galbraith
Most of what he recites refutes the Lifton body switching theory but he
does repeat the claim/belief that JFK was in a "body bag" when he was
removed from the casket.
Most of what he recites refutes the Lifton body switching theory but he
does repeat the claim/belief that JFK was in a "body bag" when he was
removed from the casket.
helped bring in the body and he saw it was JFK when the SHIPPING casket
was opened in the morgue. He helped put the body on the table. He
doesn't seem to mention any Richard Lipsey present.
wasn't there.
Edward Reed had others that corroborated what he said. No one
corroborated what Lipsey said, and half of what he said disagreed with his
own statement made closer to the event itself. Remember that I suggested
that you compare Lipsey's statements in the video to his statements in the
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
"Q: I have a question. How did you go from when Air Force One landed? How
did you go from Andrews to Bethesda itself?
LIPSEY: We accompanied General Wehle in a helicopter.
Q: In a helicopter. While the body was being driven?
LIPSEY: Right."
"Q: Okay, getting back to the bullets themselves, not the bullets
themselves but the entrances, can you just go over again the entrances as
you remember them?
LIPSEY: Alright, as I remember them there was one bullet that went in the
back of the head that exited and blew away part of his face. And that was
sort of high up, not high up but like this little crown on the back of
your head right there, three or four inches above your neck. And then the
other one entered at more of less the top of the neck, the other one
entered more of less at the bottom of the neck.
Q: Okay, so that would be up where the crown, not the top of the head?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the rear crown.
Q: Where that point might be on the skull bone?
LIPSEY: Exactly.
Q: Then one approximately several inches lower?
LIPSEY: Well not several but two or three inches lower.
Q: Still in the head? Or what we would call…
LIPSEY: Closer to the neck.
Q: Closer to the neck? And than one in the neck?
LIPSEY: In the lower neck region.
Q: In the back?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the very -- right as the ....
Q: Let's go back over things. Sometimes visual aids you forget. Okay, and
then according to the autopsy doctors they feel the one that entered in the
skull, in the rear of the head, exited the right side of the head?
LIPSEY: The right front, you know, the face. Not the right top, the right
front. The facial part of your face. In other words...
Q: Did that destroy his face at all? You say Presidents Kennedy, was his
face distorted?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the right side. If you looked at him straight. If you looked
at him from the left you couldn’t see anything. If you looked at him
from the right side it was just physically part of it blown away.
Q: So that would be right here?
LIPSEY: Yeah, behind the eye and everything.
Q: Behind the eye? Was it all hair region or was it part of the actual face?
LIPSEY: To the best of my recollection it was part of the hair region and
part of the face region"
There are few discrepancies from the two accounts. In both cases he was
being interviewed so he was responding to the questions asked. Different
questions are going to draw different answers. If he didn't mention
something in one interview that he had in the other it just means he
wasn't asked about that particular item. The only discrepancy I noticed
was a minor one. In the 1978 interview he said he was present for most of
the autopsy, occasionally getting spelled by General Wehle. In the later
interview he said he was present for the entire autopsy, not mentioning
the occasional breaks he took. In both interviews he described the wounds
the same way. Two shot entered from behind. The head shot had exited from
the front right.
the face was destroyed (right side). If the autopsy photos are to be
believed, there was no damage to that area.
right cheek and if Lipsey saw that flap in that configuration is would
look like damage to the face. Bill Newman saw the same thing and believed
JFK's right hear had been blown off.
Post by mainframetech
He said what he heard the
pathologists say, which is that 2 bullets struck the BOH, yet when we look
You have seen one BOH photo which was just one of many taken and you haveHe said what he heard the
pathologists say, which is that 2 bullets struck the BOH, yet when we look
no idea what those other photos revealed. The men who did see those photos
and were trained forensic medical examiners all saw enough to convince
them a bullet entered the BOH. That's good enough for me.
Post by mainframetech
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
Go ahead, look for the bullet entry! When you can't find it, you'll
have to call Lipsey a liar.
And don't forget his mismatch in his HSCA statement and his video.
More lies.
There were no lies in either of the two statements. They are compatible.http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
Go ahead, look for the bullet entry! When you can't find it, you'll
have to call Lipsey a liar.
And don't forget his mismatch in his HSCA statement and his video.
More lies.
Both were interviews and the questions were different so naturally the
answers would be different.
Post by mainframetech
Now here's a final statement from Lipsey, since you're so determined to
"The ceremonial troop in Washington had been arranged to meet the body at
Andrews. Put it in a hearse. We had a decoy hearse because we knew there
was a mob waiting at Bethesda Naval Hospital. So we got in a couple of
these helicopters with our honor guard when they left and flew over to the
hospital to get there before they did. And when they came in, one of the
hearses went right up to the front door. All of the crowd, of course,
rushed over there. The one with the body in it went around to the back
where the morgue was and we unloaded it. We met them in the back and
unloaded it right there to avoid the news media and the crowd and
everything else."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
And while Lipsey said the casket went by road, there was no choice that
it went by helicopter because it got to the morgue 42 minutes BEFORE the
empty Bronze casket. Lipsey has clearly said there were 2 ambulances, one
was 'decoy', and one went to the back door with the body, and the other
went to the main entrance.
I've showed you the time line that would have made it impossible for yourNow here's a final statement from Lipsey, since you're so determined to
"The ceremonial troop in Washington had been arranged to meet the body at
Andrews. Put it in a hearse. We had a decoy hearse because we knew there
was a mob waiting at Bethesda Naval Hospital. So we got in a couple of
these helicopters with our honor guard when they left and flew over to the
hospital to get there before they did. And when they came in, one of the
hearses went right up to the front door. All of the crowd, of course,
rushed over there. The one with the body in it went around to the back
where the morgue was and we unloaded it. We met them in the back and
unloaded it right there to avoid the news media and the crowd and
everything else."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
And while Lipsey said the casket went by road, there was no choice that
it went by helicopter because it got to the morgue 42 minutes BEFORE the
empty Bronze casket. Lipsey has clearly said there were 2 ambulances, one
was 'decoy', and one went to the back door with the body, and the other
went to the main entrance.
imaginary shipping casket to get to Bethesda 42 minute before the bronze
casket. For one it's only a 40 minute drive from Andrews to Bethesda and
that is if you don't have a police escort. The ambulance had a huge head
start on any shipping casket that would have been unloaded from AF1 after
all the cameras and witnesses had left the area. Even if the shipping
casket had been sent to Bethesda by teleportation, it could not have
arrived 42 minutes before the bronze casket.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-11 13:35:40 UTC
Post by bigdog
right cheek and if Lipsey saw that flap in that configuration is would
Not quite OVER the right cheek. Farther back.Post by mainframetech
the face was destroyed (right side). If the autopsy photos are to be
believed, there was no damage to that area.
We see in the Z-film that the bone flap above the ear hung down over thePost by bigdog
"Q: I have a question. How did you go from when Air Force One landed? How
did you go from Andrews to Bethesda itself?
LIPSEY: We accompanied General Wehle in a helicopter.
Q: In a helicopter. While the body was being driven?
LIPSEY: Right."
"Q: Okay, getting back to the bullets themselves, not the bullets
themselves but the entrances, can you just go over again the entrances as
you remember them?
LIPSEY: Alright, as I remember them there was one bullet that went in the
back of the head that exited and blew away part of his face. And that was
sort of high up, not high up but like this little crown on the back of
your head right there, three or four inches above your neck. And then the
other one entered at more of less the top of the neck, the other one
entered more of less at the bottom of the neck.
Q: Okay, so that would be up where the crown, not the top of the head?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the rear crown.
Q: Where that point might be on the skull bone?
LIPSEY: Exactly.
Q: Then one approximately several inches lower?
LIPSEY: Well not several but two or three inches lower.
Q: Still in the head? Or what we would call???
LIPSEY: Closer to the neck.
Q: Closer to the neck? And than one in the neck?
LIPSEY: In the lower neck region.
Q: In the back?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the very -- right as the ....
Q: Let's go back over things. Sometimes visual aids you forget. Okay, and
then according to the autopsy doctors they feel the one that entered in the
skull, in the rear of the head, exited the right side of the head?
LIPSEY: The right front, you know, the face. Not the right top, the right
front. The facial part of your face. In other words...
Q: Did that destroy his face at all? You say Presidents Kennedy, was his
face distorted?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the right side. If you looked at him straight. If you looked
at him from the left you couldn???t see anything. If you looked at him
from the right side it was just physically part of it blown away.
Q: So that would be right here?
LIPSEY: Yeah, behind the eye and everything.
Q: Behind the eye? Was it all hair region or was it part of the actual face?
LIPSEY: To the best of my recollection it was part of the hair region and
part of the face region"
There are few discrepancies from the two accounts. In both cases he was
being interviewed so he was responding to the questions asked. Different
questions are going to draw different answers. If he didn't mention
something in one interview that he had in the other it just means he
wasn't asked about that particular item. The only discrepancy I noticed
was a minor one. In the 1978 interview he said he was present for most of
the autopsy, occasionally getting spelled by General Wehle. In the later
interview he said he was present for the entire autopsy, not mentioning
the occasional breaks he took. In both interviews he described the wounds
the same way. Two shot entered from behind. The head shot had exited from
the front right.
OK. Let's look at that bunch of statements. He is saying that partlyPost by mainframetech
Edward Reed had others that corroborated what he said. No one
corroborated what Lipsey said, and half of what he said disagreed with his
own statement made closer to the event itself. Remember that I suggested
that you compare Lipsey's statements in the video to his statements in the
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
Some interesting quotes from that 1978 interview, Lipsey's earliest on thePost by bigdog
wasn't there.
How easily you forget my point because it disproves you contention.Post by mainframetech
If you check the testimony of Edward Reed, X-ray Technician, he
helped bring in the body and he saw it was JFK when the SHIPPING casket
was opened in the morgue. He helped put the body on the table. He
doesn't seem to mention any Richard Lipsey present.
Lipsey doesn't mention Reed either so by your reasoning that means ReedPost by Steve M. Galbraith
Most of what he recites refutes the Lifton body switching theory but he
does repeat the claim/belief that JFK was in a "body bag" when he was
removed from the casket.
Most of what he recites refutes the Lifton body switching theory but he
does repeat the claim/belief that JFK was in a "body bag" when he was
removed from the casket.
helped bring in the body and he saw it was JFK when the SHIPPING casket
was opened in the morgue. He helped put the body on the table. He
doesn't seem to mention any Richard Lipsey present.
wasn't there.
Edward Reed had others that corroborated what he said. No one
corroborated what Lipsey said, and half of what he said disagreed with his
own statement made closer to the event itself. Remember that I suggested
that you compare Lipsey's statements in the video to his statements in the
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
"Q: I have a question. How did you go from when Air Force One landed? How
did you go from Andrews to Bethesda itself?
LIPSEY: We accompanied General Wehle in a helicopter.
Q: In a helicopter. While the body was being driven?
LIPSEY: Right."
"Q: Okay, getting back to the bullets themselves, not the bullets
themselves but the entrances, can you just go over again the entrances as
you remember them?
LIPSEY: Alright, as I remember them there was one bullet that went in the
back of the head that exited and blew away part of his face. And that was
sort of high up, not high up but like this little crown on the back of
your head right there, three or four inches above your neck. And then the
other one entered at more of less the top of the neck, the other one
entered more of less at the bottom of the neck.
Q: Okay, so that would be up where the crown, not the top of the head?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the rear crown.
Q: Where that point might be on the skull bone?
LIPSEY: Exactly.
Q: Then one approximately several inches lower?
LIPSEY: Well not several but two or three inches lower.
Q: Still in the head? Or what we would call???
LIPSEY: Closer to the neck.
Q: Closer to the neck? And than one in the neck?
LIPSEY: In the lower neck region.
Q: In the back?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the very -- right as the ....
Q: Let's go back over things. Sometimes visual aids you forget. Okay, and
then according to the autopsy doctors they feel the one that entered in the
skull, in the rear of the head, exited the right side of the head?
LIPSEY: The right front, you know, the face. Not the right top, the right
front. The facial part of your face. In other words...
Q: Did that destroy his face at all? You say Presidents Kennedy, was his
face distorted?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the right side. If you looked at him straight. If you looked
at him from the left you couldn???t see anything. If you looked at him
from the right side it was just physically part of it blown away.
Q: So that would be right here?
LIPSEY: Yeah, behind the eye and everything.
Q: Behind the eye? Was it all hair region or was it part of the actual face?
LIPSEY: To the best of my recollection it was part of the hair region and
part of the face region"
There are few discrepancies from the two accounts. In both cases he was
being interviewed so he was responding to the questions asked. Different
questions are going to draw different answers. If he didn't mention
something in one interview that he had in the other it just means he
wasn't asked about that particular item. The only discrepancy I noticed
was a minor one. In the 1978 interview he said he was present for most of
the autopsy, occasionally getting spelled by General Wehle. In the later
interview he said he was present for the entire autopsy, not mentioning
the occasional breaks he took. In both interviews he described the wounds
the same way. Two shot entered from behind. The head shot had exited from
the front right.
the face was destroyed (right side). If the autopsy photos are to be
believed, there was no damage to that area.
right cheek and if Lipsey saw that flap in that configuration is would
Lipsey did not see that flap sticking out. Jackie had put it back in place.
Nope.
Post by bigdog
no idea what those other photos revealed. The men who did see those photos
Yes, WE do, because WE have them. You are not alllowed to have themPost by mainframetech
He said what he heard the
pathologists say, which is that 2 bullets struck the BOH, yet when we look
You have seen one BOH photo which was just one of many taken and you haveHe said what he heard the
pathologists say, which is that 2 bullets struck the BOH, yet when we look
no idea what those other photos revealed. The men who did see those photos
because you are a WC defender.
Post by bigdog
and were trained forensic medical examiners all saw enough to convince
them a bullet entered the BOH. That's good enough for me.
Any lie if good enough for you.and were trained forensic medical examiners all saw enough to convince
them a bullet entered the BOH. That's good enough for me.
Post by bigdog
Both were interviews and the questions were different so naturally the
answers would be different.
Then show us the entrance wound. You can't. You don't do research.Post by mainframetech
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
Go ahead, look for the bullet entry! When you can't find it, you'll
have to call Lipsey a liar.
And don't forget his mismatch in his HSCA statement and his video.
More lies.
There were no lies in either of the two statements. They are compatible.http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
Go ahead, look for the bullet entry! When you can't find it, you'll
have to call Lipsey a liar.
And don't forget his mismatch in his HSCA statement and his video.
More lies.
Both were interviews and the questions were different so naturally the
answers would be different.
You HEAR things.
Post by bigdog
imaginary shipping casket to get to Bethesda 42 minute before the bronze
casket. For one it's only a 40 minute drive from Andrews to Bethesda and
that is if you don't have a police escort. The ambulance had a huge head
start on any shipping casket that would have been unloaded from AF1 after
all the cameras and witnesses had left the area. Even if the shipping
casket had been sent to Bethesda by teleportation, it could not have
arrived 42 minutes before the bronze casket.
Sure, but you keep giving him loopholes to get out of the quagmire.Post by mainframetech
Now here's a final statement from Lipsey, since you're so determined to
"The ceremonial troop in Washington had been arranged to meet the body at
Andrews. Put it in a hearse. We had a decoy hearse because we knew there
was a mob waiting at Bethesda Naval Hospital. So we got in a couple of
these helicopters with our honor guard when they left and flew over to the
hospital to get there before they did. And when they came in, one of the
hearses went right up to the front door. All of the crowd, of course,
rushed over there. The one with the body in it went around to the back
where the morgue was and we unloaded it. We met them in the back and
unloaded it right there to avoid the news media and the crowd and
everything else."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
And while Lipsey said the casket went by road, there was no choice that
it went by helicopter because it got to the morgue 42 minutes BEFORE the
empty Bronze casket. Lipsey has clearly said there were 2 ambulances, one
was 'decoy', and one went to the back door with the body, and the other
went to the main entrance.
I've showed you the time line that would have made it impossible for yourNow here's a final statement from Lipsey, since you're so determined to
"The ceremonial troop in Washington had been arranged to meet the body at
Andrews. Put it in a hearse. We had a decoy hearse because we knew there
was a mob waiting at Bethesda Naval Hospital. So we got in a couple of
these helicopters with our honor guard when they left and flew over to the
hospital to get there before they did. And when they came in, one of the
hearses went right up to the front door. All of the crowd, of course,
rushed over there. The one with the body in it went around to the back
where the morgue was and we unloaded it. We met them in the back and
unloaded it right there to avoid the news media and the crowd and
everything else."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
And while Lipsey said the casket went by road, there was no choice that
it went by helicopter because it got to the morgue 42 minutes BEFORE the
empty Bronze casket. Lipsey has clearly said there were 2 ambulances, one
was 'decoy', and one went to the back door with the body, and the other
went to the main entrance.
imaginary shipping casket to get to Bethesda 42 minute before the bronze
casket. For one it's only a 40 minute drive from Andrews to Bethesda and
that is if you don't have a police escort. The ambulance had a huge head
start on any shipping casket that would have been unloaded from AF1 after
all the cameras and witnesses had left the area. Even if the shipping
casket had been sent to Bethesda by teleportation, it could not have
arrived 42 minutes before the bronze casket.
mainframetech
2018-07-18 04:45:51 UTC
Post by bigdog
right cheek and if Lipsey saw that flap in that configuration is would
look like damage to the face. Bill Newman saw the same thing and believed
JFK's right hear had been blown off.
no idea what those other photos revealed. The men who did see those photos
and were trained forensic medical examiners all saw enough to convince
them a bullet entered the BOH. That's good enough for me.
DON'T GIVE ME THAT COVERUP CRAP! The photo of the BOH that we have isPost by mainframetech
the face was destroyed (right side). If the autopsy photos are to be
believed, there was no damage to that area.
We see in the Z-film that the bone flap above the ear hung down over thePost by bigdog
"Q: I have a question. How did you go from when Air Force One landed? How
did you go from Andrews to Bethesda itself?
LIPSEY: We accompanied General Wehle in a helicopter.
Q: In a helicopter. While the body was being driven?
LIPSEY: Right."
"Q: Okay, getting back to the bullets themselves, not the bullets
themselves but the entrances, can you just go over again the entrances as
you remember them?
LIPSEY: Alright, as I remember them there was one bullet that went in the
back of the head that exited and blew away part of his face. And that was
sort of high up, not high up but like this little crown on the back of
your head right there, three or four inches above your neck. And then the
other one entered at more of less the top of the neck, the other one
entered more of less at the bottom of the neck.
Q: Okay, so that would be up where the crown, not the top of the head?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the rear crown.
Q: Where that point might be on the skull bone?
LIPSEY: Exactly.
Q: Then one approximately several inches lower?
LIPSEY: Well not several but two or three inches lower.
Q: Still in the head? Or what we would call…
LIPSEY: Closer to the neck.
Q: Closer to the neck? And than one in the neck?
LIPSEY: In the lower neck region.
Q: In the back?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the very -- right as the ....
Q: Let's go back over things. Sometimes visual aids you forget. Okay, and
then according to the autopsy doctors they feel the one that entered in the
skull, in the rear of the head, exited the right side of the head?
LIPSEY: The right front, you know, the face. Not the right top, the right
front. The facial part of your face. In other words...
Q: Did that destroy his face at all? You say Presidents Kennedy, was his
face distorted?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the right side. If you looked at him straight. If you looked
at him from the left you couldn’t see anything. If you looked at him
from the right side it was just physically part of it blown away.
Q: So that would be right here?
LIPSEY: Yeah, behind the eye and everything.
Q: Behind the eye? Was it all hair region or was it part of the actual face?
LIPSEY: To the best of my recollection it was part of the hair region and
part of the face region"
There are few discrepancies from the two accounts. In both cases he was
being interviewed so he was responding to the questions asked. Different
questions are going to draw different answers. If he didn't mention
something in one interview that he had in the other it just means he
wasn't asked about that particular item. The only discrepancy I noticed
was a minor one. In the 1978 interview he said he was present for most of
the autopsy, occasionally getting spelled by General Wehle. In the later
interview he said he was present for the entire autopsy, not mentioning
the occasional breaks he took. In both interviews he described the wounds
the same way. Two shot entered from behind. The head shot had exited from
the front right.
OK. Let's look at that bunch of statements. He is saying that partlyPost by mainframetech
Edward Reed had others that corroborated what he said. No one
corroborated what Lipsey said, and half of what he said disagreed with his
own statement made closer to the event itself. Remember that I suggested
that you compare Lipsey's statements in the video to his statements in the
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
Some interesting quotes from that 1978 interview, Lipsey's earliest on thePost by bigdog
wasn't there.
How easily you forget my point because it disproves you contention.Post by mainframetech
If you check the testimony of Edward Reed, X-ray Technician, he
helped bring in the body and he saw it was JFK when the SHIPPING casket
was opened in the morgue. He helped put the body on the table. He
doesn't seem to mention any Richard Lipsey present.
Lipsey doesn't mention Reed either so by your reasoning that means ReedPost by Steve M. Galbraith
Most of what he recites refutes the Lifton body switching theory but he
does repeat the claim/belief that JFK was in a "body bag" when he was
removed from the casket.
Most of what he recites refutes the Lifton body switching theory but he
does repeat the claim/belief that JFK was in a "body bag" when he was
removed from the casket.
helped bring in the body and he saw it was JFK when the SHIPPING casket
was opened in the morgue. He helped put the body on the table. He
doesn't seem to mention any Richard Lipsey present.
wasn't there.
Edward Reed had others that corroborated what he said. No one
corroborated what Lipsey said, and half of what he said disagreed with his
own statement made closer to the event itself. Remember that I suggested
that you compare Lipsey's statements in the video to his statements in the
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
"Q: I have a question. How did you go from when Air Force One landed? How
did you go from Andrews to Bethesda itself?
LIPSEY: We accompanied General Wehle in a helicopter.
Q: In a helicopter. While the body was being driven?
LIPSEY: Right."
"Q: Okay, getting back to the bullets themselves, not the bullets
themselves but the entrances, can you just go over again the entrances as
you remember them?
LIPSEY: Alright, as I remember them there was one bullet that went in the
back of the head that exited and blew away part of his face. And that was
sort of high up, not high up but like this little crown on the back of
your head right there, three or four inches above your neck. And then the
other one entered at more of less the top of the neck, the other one
entered more of less at the bottom of the neck.
Q: Okay, so that would be up where the crown, not the top of the head?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the rear crown.
Q: Where that point might be on the skull bone?
LIPSEY: Exactly.
Q: Then one approximately several inches lower?
LIPSEY: Well not several but two or three inches lower.
Q: Still in the head? Or what we would call…
LIPSEY: Closer to the neck.
Q: Closer to the neck? And than one in the neck?
LIPSEY: In the lower neck region.
Q: In the back?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the very -- right as the ....
Q: Let's go back over things. Sometimes visual aids you forget. Okay, and
then according to the autopsy doctors they feel the one that entered in the
skull, in the rear of the head, exited the right side of the head?
LIPSEY: The right front, you know, the face. Not the right top, the right
front. The facial part of your face. In other words...
Q: Did that destroy his face at all? You say Presidents Kennedy, was his
face distorted?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the right side. If you looked at him straight. If you looked
at him from the left you couldn’t see anything. If you looked at him
from the right side it was just physically part of it blown away.
Q: So that would be right here?
LIPSEY: Yeah, behind the eye and everything.
Q: Behind the eye? Was it all hair region or was it part of the actual face?
LIPSEY: To the best of my recollection it was part of the hair region and
part of the face region"
There are few discrepancies from the two accounts. In both cases he was
being interviewed so he was responding to the questions asked. Different
questions are going to draw different answers. If he didn't mention
something in one interview that he had in the other it just means he
wasn't asked about that particular item. The only discrepancy I noticed
was a minor one. In the 1978 interview he said he was present for most of
the autopsy, occasionally getting spelled by General Wehle. In the later
interview he said he was present for the entire autopsy, not mentioning
the occasional breaks he took. In both interviews he described the wounds
the same way. Two shot entered from behind. The head shot had exited from
the front right.
the face was destroyed (right side). If the autopsy photos are to be
believed, there was no damage to that area.
right cheek and if Lipsey saw that flap in that configuration is would
look like damage to the face. Bill Newman saw the same thing and believed
JFK's right hear had been blown off.
Post by mainframetech
He said what he heard the
pathologists say, which is that 2 bullets struck the BOH, yet when we look
You have seen one BOH photo which was just one of many taken and you haveHe said what he heard the
pathologists say, which is that 2 bullets struck the BOH, yet when we look
no idea what those other photos revealed. The men who did see those photos
and were trained forensic medical examiners all saw enough to convince
them a bullet entered the BOH. That's good enough for me.
perfectly valid and clear for the purpose of seeing a bullet hole. But
there is none there. The photo shows the areas where the pathologists
said the bullet hole was located, but there's nothing there. And you
won't want to hear it, but the photo of the BOH is also very WRONG, since
there were over 39 eyewitnesses that there was a 'large hole' in the BOH,
right where the photo shows hair and no hole. Not only do the photos show
falseness in the reporting, but they prove they were altered as well. If
the medical examiners saw those photos, then there's no doubt they got the
wrong conclusions as to the cause of death. Naturally, the LNs reading
this will ignore completely the photographic proof just shown.
Post by bigdog
Both were interviews and the questions were different so naturally the
answers would be different.
Oh, get away! His 2 statements did not agree, and it is simple toPost by mainframetech
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
Go ahead, look for the bullet entry! When you can't find it, you'll
have to call Lipsey a liar.
And don't forget his mismatch in his HSCA statement and his video.
More lies.
There were no lies in either of the two statements. They are compatible.http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
Go ahead, look for the bullet entry! When you can't find it, you'll
have to call Lipsey a liar.
And don't forget his mismatch in his HSCA statement and his video.
More lies.
Both were interviews and the questions were different so naturally the
answers would be different.
see the difference. And it's not due to different questions.
Post by bigdog
imaginary shipping casket to get to Bethesda 42 minute before the bronze
casket. For one it's only a 40 minute drive from Andrews to Bethesda and
that is if you don't have a police escort. The ambulance had a huge head
start on any shipping casket that would have been unloaded from AF1 after
all the cameras and witnesses had left the area. Even if the shipping
casket had been sent to Bethesda by teleportation, it could not have
arrived 42 minutes before the bronze casket.
I wonder about you. You get sworn testimony and corroboration thatPost by mainframetech
Now here's a final statement from Lipsey, since you're so determined to
"The ceremonial troop in Washington had been arranged to meet the body at
Andrews. Put it in a hearse. We had a decoy hearse because we knew there
was a mob waiting at Bethesda Naval Hospital. So we got in a couple of
these helicopters with our honor guard when they left and flew over to the
hospital to get there before they did. And when they came in, one of the
hearses went right up to the front door. All of the crowd, of course,
rushed over there. The one with the body in it went around to the back
where the morgue was and we unloaded it. We met them in the back and
unloaded it right there to avoid the news media and the crowd and
everything else."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
And while Lipsey said the casket went by road, there was no choice that
it went by helicopter because it got to the morgue 42 minutes BEFORE the
empty Bronze casket. Lipsey has clearly said there were 2 ambulances, one
was 'decoy', and one went to the back door with the body, and the other
went to the main entrance.
I've showed you the time line that would have made it impossible for yourNow here's a final statement from Lipsey, since you're so determined to
"The ceremonial troop in Washington had been arranged to meet the body at
Andrews. Put it in a hearse. We had a decoy hearse because we knew there
was a mob waiting at Bethesda Naval Hospital. So we got in a couple of
these helicopters with our honor guard when they left and flew over to the
hospital to get there before they did. And when they came in, one of the
hearses went right up to the front door. All of the crowd, of course,
rushed over there. The one with the body in it went around to the back
where the morgue was and we unloaded it. We met them in the back and
unloaded it right there to avoid the news media and the crowd and
everything else."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
And while Lipsey said the casket went by road, there was no choice that
it went by helicopter because it got to the morgue 42 minutes BEFORE the
empty Bronze casket. Lipsey has clearly said there were 2 ambulances, one
was 'decoy', and one went to the back door with the body, and the other
went to the main entrance.
imaginary shipping casket to get to Bethesda 42 minute before the bronze
casket. For one it's only a 40 minute drive from Andrews to Bethesda and
that is if you don't have a police escort. The ambulance had a huge head
start on any shipping casket that would have been unloaded from AF1 after
all the cameras and witnesses had left the area. Even if the shipping
casket had been sent to Bethesda by teleportation, it could not have
arrived 42 minutes before the bronze casket.
there were 2 caskets and they arrived at different times, and you still
try to pretend that the evidence didn't happen! That's weird! You base
your imaginary story on guesses as to road conditions, and speed of
driving, when you have flat statements of what had transpired in reality.
And of course, you've left out the time spent at the main entrance while
the family got out of the ambulance.
Chris
bigdog
2018-07-19 02:22:28 UTC
Post by mainframetech
perfectly valid and clear for the purpose of seeing a bullet hole. But
there is none there. The photo shows the areas where the pathologists
said the bullet hole was located, but there's nothing there. And you
won't want to hear it, but the photo of the BOH is also very WRONG, since
there were over 39 eyewitnesses that there was a 'large hole' in the BOH,
right where the photo shows hair and no hole. Not only do the photos show
falseness in the reporting, but they prove they were altered as well. If
the medical examiners saw those photos, then there's no doubt they got the
wrong conclusions as to the cause of death. Naturally, the LNs reading
this will ignore completely the photographic proof just shown.
So you think your amateurish opinion based on looking at one photo trumpsPost by bigdog
right cheek and if Lipsey saw that flap in that configuration is would
look like damage to the face. Bill Newman saw the same thing and believed
JFK's right hear had been blown off.
no idea what those other photos revealed. The men who did see those photos
and were trained forensic medical examiners all saw enough to convince
them a bullet entered the BOH. That's good enough for me.
DON'T GIVE ME THAT COVERUP CRAP! The photo of the BOH that we have isPost by mainframetech
the face was destroyed (right side). If the autopsy photos are to be
believed, there was no damage to that area.
We see in the Z-film that the bone flap above the ear hung down over thePost by bigdog
"Q: I have a question. How did you go from when Air Force One landed? How
did you go from Andrews to Bethesda itself?
LIPSEY: We accompanied General Wehle in a helicopter.
Q: In a helicopter. While the body was being driven?
LIPSEY: Right."
"Q: Okay, getting back to the bullets themselves, not the bullets
themselves but the entrances, can you just go over again the entrances as
you remember them?
LIPSEY: Alright, as I remember them there was one bullet that went in the
back of the head that exited and blew away part of his face. And that was
sort of high up, not high up but like this little crown on the back of
your head right there, three or four inches above your neck. And then the
other one entered at more of less the top of the neck, the other one
entered more of less at the bottom of the neck.
Q: Okay, so that would be up where the crown, not the top of the head?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the rear crown.
Q: Where that point might be on the skull bone?
LIPSEY: Exactly.
Q: Then one approximately several inches lower?
LIPSEY: Well not several but two or three inches lower.
Q: Still in the head? Or what we would call…
LIPSEY: Closer to the neck.
Q: Closer to the neck? And than one in the neck?
LIPSEY: In the lower neck region.
Q: In the back?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the very -- right as the ....
Q: Let's go back over things. Sometimes visual aids you forget. Okay, and
then according to the autopsy doctors they feel the one that entered in the
skull, in the rear of the head, exited the right side of the head?
LIPSEY: The right front, you know, the face. Not the right top, the right
front. The facial part of your face. In other words...
Q: Did that destroy his face at all? You say Presidents Kennedy, was his
face distorted?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the right side. If you looked at him straight. If you looked
at him from the left you couldn’t see anything. If you looked at him
from the right side it was just physically part of it blown away.
Q: So that would be right here?
LIPSEY: Yeah, behind the eye and everything.
Q: Behind the eye? Was it all hair region or was it part of the actual face?
LIPSEY: To the best of my recollection it was part of the hair region and
part of the face region"
There are few discrepancies from the two accounts. In both cases he was
being interviewed so he was responding to the questions asked. Different
questions are going to draw different answers. If he didn't mention
something in one interview that he had in the other it just means he
wasn't asked about that particular item. The only discrepancy I noticed
was a minor one. In the 1978 interview he said he was present for most of
the autopsy, occasionally getting spelled by General Wehle. In the later
interview he said he was present for the entire autopsy, not mentioning
the occasional breaks he took. In both interviews he described the wounds
the same way. Two shot entered from behind. The head shot had exited from
the front right.
OK. Let's look at that bunch of statements. He is saying that partlyPost by mainframetech
Edward Reed had others that corroborated what he said. No one
corroborated what Lipsey said, and half of what he said disagreed with his
own statement made closer to the event itself. Remember that I suggested
that you compare Lipsey's statements in the video to his statements in the
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
Some interesting quotes from that 1978 interview, Lipsey's earliest on thePost by bigdog
wasn't there.
How easily you forget my point because it disproves you contention.Post by mainframetech
If you check the testimony of Edward Reed, X-ray Technician, he
helped bring in the body and he saw it was JFK when the SHIPPING casket
was opened in the morgue. He helped put the body on the table. He
doesn't seem to mention any Richard Lipsey present.
Lipsey doesn't mention Reed either so by your reasoning that means ReedPost by Steve M. Galbraith
Most of what he recites refutes the Lifton body switching theory but he
does repeat the claim/belief that JFK was in a "body bag" when he was
removed from the casket.
Most of what he recites refutes the Lifton body switching theory but he
does repeat the claim/belief that JFK was in a "body bag" when he was
removed from the casket.
helped bring in the body and he saw it was JFK when the SHIPPING casket
was opened in the morgue. He helped put the body on the table. He
doesn't seem to mention any Richard Lipsey present.
wasn't there.
Edward Reed had others that corroborated what he said. No one
corroborated what Lipsey said, and half of what he said disagreed with his
own statement made closer to the event itself. Remember that I suggested
that you compare Lipsey's statements in the video to his statements in the
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
"Q: I have a question. How did you go from when Air Force One landed? How
did you go from Andrews to Bethesda itself?
LIPSEY: We accompanied General Wehle in a helicopter.
Q: In a helicopter. While the body was being driven?
LIPSEY: Right."
"Q: Okay, getting back to the bullets themselves, not the bullets
themselves but the entrances, can you just go over again the entrances as
you remember them?
LIPSEY: Alright, as I remember them there was one bullet that went in the
back of the head that exited and blew away part of his face. And that was
sort of high up, not high up but like this little crown on the back of
your head right there, three or four inches above your neck. And then the
other one entered at more of less the top of the neck, the other one
entered more of less at the bottom of the neck.
Q: Okay, so that would be up where the crown, not the top of the head?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the rear crown.
Q: Where that point might be on the skull bone?
LIPSEY: Exactly.
Q: Then one approximately several inches lower?
LIPSEY: Well not several but two or three inches lower.
Q: Still in the head? Or what we would call…
LIPSEY: Closer to the neck.
Q: Closer to the neck? And than one in the neck?
LIPSEY: In the lower neck region.
Q: In the back?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the very -- right as the ....
Q: Let's go back over things. Sometimes visual aids you forget. Okay, and
then according to the autopsy doctors they feel the one that entered in the
skull, in the rear of the head, exited the right side of the head?
LIPSEY: The right front, you know, the face. Not the right top, the right
front. The facial part of your face. In other words...
Q: Did that destroy his face at all? You say Presidents Kennedy, was his
face distorted?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the right side. If you looked at him straight. If you looked
at him from the left you couldn’t see anything. If you looked at him
from the right side it was just physically part of it blown away.
Q: So that would be right here?
LIPSEY: Yeah, behind the eye and everything.
Q: Behind the eye? Was it all hair region or was it part of the actual face?
LIPSEY: To the best of my recollection it was part of the hair region and
part of the face region"
There are few discrepancies from the two accounts. In both cases he was
being interviewed so he was responding to the questions asked. Different
questions are going to draw different answers. If he didn't mention
something in one interview that he had in the other it just means he
wasn't asked about that particular item. The only discrepancy I noticed
was a minor one. In the 1978 interview he said he was present for most of
the autopsy, occasionally getting spelled by General Wehle. In the later
interview he said he was present for the entire autopsy, not mentioning
the occasional breaks he took. In both interviews he described the wounds
the same way. Two shot entered from behind. The head shot had exited from
the front right.
the face was destroyed (right side). If the autopsy photos are to be
believed, there was no damage to that area.
right cheek and if Lipsey saw that flap in that configuration is would
look like damage to the face. Bill Newman saw the same thing and believed
JFK's right hear had been blown off.
Post by mainframetech
He said what he heard the
pathologists say, which is that 2 bullets struck the BOH, yet when we look
You have seen one BOH photo which was just one of many taken and you haveHe said what he heard the
pathologists say, which is that 2 bullets struck the BOH, yet when we look
no idea what those other photos revealed. The men who did see those photos
and were trained forensic medical examiners all saw enough to convince
them a bullet entered the BOH. That's good enough for me.
perfectly valid and clear for the purpose of seeing a bullet hole. But
there is none there. The photo shows the areas where the pathologists
said the bullet hole was located, but there's nothing there. And you
won't want to hear it, but the photo of the BOH is also very WRONG, since
there were over 39 eyewitnesses that there was a 'large hole' in the BOH,
right where the photo shows hair and no hole. Not only do the photos show
falseness in the reporting, but they prove they were altered as well. If
the medical examiners saw those photos, then there's no doubt they got the
wrong conclusions as to the cause of death. Naturally, the LNs reading
this will ignore completely the photographic proof just shown.
the findings of the 3 pathologists who had the body in front of them as
well as teams of highly qualified review panels who saw so many more
photos as well as x-rays. I don't know whether they red spot is the bullet
hole or not. What I do know is that at scalp had been pulled away from the
skull and if it was pulled back up for that picture, it may not have lined
up with the hole in the scalp making the hole harder to see. It's also
possible the entry wound is hidden under the hair. In any case, it would
be very silly of me to think with my complete lack of training in forensic
medicine that I could look at one photo and make a better determination
than the three pathologists who conducted the autopsy and teams of the
best medical examiners in the country who got to see far more and better
quality photos and x-rays than I have. What kind of moron would do
something like that?
You are making a big deal about not being able to see a small entry wound
in the BOH. Apparently it doesn't bother you that the large blowout in the
BOH that you claim was there doesn't show up in that photo either. Got any
explanation for that?
Post by mainframetech
see the difference. And it's not due to different questions.
Why would you expect him to give the same answers to different questions?Post by bigdog
Both were interviews and the questions were different so naturally the
answers would be different.
Oh, get away! His 2 statements did not agree, and it is simple toPost by mainframetech
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
Go ahead, look for the bullet entry! When you can't find it, you'll
have to call Lipsey a liar.
And don't forget his mismatch in his HSCA statement and his video.
More lies.
There were no lies in either of the two statements. They are compatible.http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
Go ahead, look for the bullet entry! When you can't find it, you'll
have to call Lipsey a liar.
And don't forget his mismatch in his HSCA statement and his video.
More lies.
Both were interviews and the questions were different so naturally the
answers would be different.
see the difference. And it's not due to different questions.
Post by mainframetech
there were 2 caskets and they arrived at different times, and you still
try to pretend that the evidence didn't happen! That's weird! You base
your imaginary story on guesses as to road conditions, and speed of
driving, when you have flat statements of what had transpired in reality.
And of course, you've left out the time spent at the main entrance while
the family got out of the ambulance.
There is no sworn testimony by anyone that two caskets arrived. EverybodyPost by bigdog
imaginary shipping casket to get to Bethesda 42 minute before the bronze
casket. For one it's only a 40 minute drive from Andrews to Bethesda and
that is if you don't have a police escort. The ambulance had a huge head
start on any shipping casket that would have been unloaded from AF1 after
all the cameras and witnesses had left the area. Even if the shipping
casket had been sent to Bethesda by teleportation, it could not have
arrived 42 minutes before the bronze casket.
I wonder about you. You get sworn testimony and corroboration thatPost by mainframetech
Now here's a final statement from Lipsey, since you're so determined to
"The ceremonial troop in Washington had been arranged to meet the body at
Andrews. Put it in a hearse. We had a decoy hearse because we knew there
was a mob waiting at Bethesda Naval Hospital. So we got in a couple of
these helicopters with our honor guard when they left and flew over to the
hospital to get there before they did. And when they came in, one of the
hearses went right up to the front door. All of the crowd, of course,
rushed over there. The one with the body in it went around to the back
where the morgue was and we unloaded it. We met them in the back and
unloaded it right there to avoid the news media and the crowd and
everything else."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
And while Lipsey said the casket went by road, there was no choice that
it went by helicopter because it got to the morgue 42 minutes BEFORE the
empty Bronze casket. Lipsey has clearly said there were 2 ambulances, one
was 'decoy', and one went to the back door with the body, and the other
went to the main entrance.
I've showed you the time line that would have made it impossible for yourNow here's a final statement from Lipsey, since you're so determined to
"The ceremonial troop in Washington had been arranged to meet the body at
Andrews. Put it in a hearse. We had a decoy hearse because we knew there
was a mob waiting at Bethesda Naval Hospital. So we got in a couple of
these helicopters with our honor guard when they left and flew over to the
hospital to get there before they did. And when they came in, one of the
hearses went right up to the front door. All of the crowd, of course,
rushed over there. The one with the body in it went around to the back
where the morgue was and we unloaded it. We met them in the back and
unloaded it right there to avoid the news media and the crowd and
everything else."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
And while Lipsey said the casket went by road, there was no choice that
it went by helicopter because it got to the morgue 42 minutes BEFORE the
empty Bronze casket. Lipsey has clearly said there were 2 ambulances, one
was 'decoy', and one went to the back door with the body, and the other
went to the main entrance.
imaginary shipping casket to get to Bethesda 42 minute before the bronze
casket. For one it's only a 40 minute drive from Andrews to Bethesda and
that is if you don't have a police escort. The ambulance had a huge head
start on any shipping casket that would have been unloaded from AF1 after
all the cameras and witnesses had left the area. Even if the shipping
casket had been sent to Bethesda by teleportation, it could not have
arrived 42 minutes before the bronze casket.
there were 2 caskets and they arrived at different times, and you still
try to pretend that the evidence didn't happen! That's weird! You base
your imaginary story on guesses as to road conditions, and speed of
driving, when you have flat statements of what had transpired in reality.
And of course, you've left out the time spent at the main entrance while
the family got out of the ambulance.
who weighed in described one casket. They differed on the time of arrival
and the type of casket but nobody said two caskets arrived. Nobody except
silly conspiracy hobbyists who seem to be incapable of logical thought.
You can add a couple minutes it would have taken to drop the passengers
off at the front entrance and then drive around to the morgue loading
dock. You still can't come close to getting your helicopter to Bethesda 42
minutes before bronze casket. Your 42 minute time differential is
ludicrous. For one you are comparing one person's ESTIMATE of the time of
arrival with Sibert's statement that by 7:17 the body was being prepared
for autopsy. You aren't even comparing two time of arrival estimates. How
silly is that? Your 42 minute time differential has been refuted just
about every way imaginable and yet you refuse to let go of it. It is an
essential component for what you want to believe happened and so you cling
to it no matter how many ways it is shown to you that it is impossible.
You might fool yourself with this nonsense but no reasonable person is
going to be swayed by such drivel. IOW, you are wasting your time, but
that pretty much describes 54 years of the conspiracy hobby.
mainframetech
2018-07-20 00:35:40 UTC
Post by bigdog
the findings of the 3 pathologists who had the body in front of them as
well as teams of highly qualified review panels who saw so many more
photos as well as x-rays.
WRONG as usual! So you think your amateur opinion of my flat statementPost by mainframetech
perfectly valid and clear for the purpose of seeing a bullet hole. But
there is none there. The photo shows the areas where the pathologists
said the bullet hole was located, but there's nothing there. And you
won't want to hear it, but the photo of the BOH is also very WRONG, since
there were over 39 eyewitnesses that there was a 'large hole' in the BOH,
right where the photo shows hair and no hole. Not only do the photos show
falseness in the reporting, but they prove they were altered as well. If
the medical examiners saw those photos, then there's no doubt they got the
wrong conclusions as to the cause of death. Naturally, the LNs reading
this will ignore completely the photographic proof just shown.
So you think your amateurish opinion based on looking at one photo trumpsPost by bigdog
right cheek and if Lipsey saw that flap in that configuration is would
look like damage to the face. Bill Newman saw the same thing and believed
JFK's right hear had been blown off.
no idea what those other photos revealed. The men who did see those photos
and were trained forensic medical examiners all saw enough to convince
them a bullet entered the BOH. That's good enough for me.
DON'T GIVE ME THAT COVERUP CRAP! The photo of the BOH that we have isPost by mainframetech
the face was destroyed (right side). If the autopsy photos are to be
believed, there was no damage to that area.
We see in the Z-film that the bone flap above the ear hung down over thePost by bigdog
"Q: I have a question. How did you go from when Air Force One landed? How
did you go from Andrews to Bethesda itself?
LIPSEY: We accompanied General Wehle in a helicopter.
Q: In a helicopter. While the body was being driven?
LIPSEY: Right."
"Q: Okay, getting back to the bullets themselves, not the bullets
themselves but the entrances, can you just go over again the entrances as
you remember them?
LIPSEY: Alright, as I remember them there was one bullet that went in the
back of the head that exited and blew away part of his face. And that was
sort of high up, not high up but like this little crown on the back of
your head right there, three or four inches above your neck. And then the
other one entered at more of less the top of the neck, the other one
entered more of less at the bottom of the neck.
Q: Okay, so that would be up where the crown, not the top of the head?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the rear crown.
Q: Where that point might be on the skull bone?
LIPSEY: Exactly.
Q: Then one approximately several inches lower?
LIPSEY: Well not several but two or three inches lower.
Q: Still in the head? Or what we would call…
LIPSEY: Closer to the neck.
Q: Closer to the neck? And than one in the neck?
LIPSEY: In the lower neck region.
Q: In the back?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the very -- right as the ....
Q: Let's go back over things. Sometimes visual aids you forget. Okay, and
then according to the autopsy doctors they feel the one that entered in the
skull, in the rear of the head, exited the right side of the head?
LIPSEY: The right front, you know, the face. Not the right top, the right
front. The facial part of your face. In other words...
Q: Did that destroy his face at all? You say Presidents Kennedy, was his
face distorted?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the right side. If you looked at him straight. If you looked
at him from the left you couldn’t see anything. If you looked at him
from the right side it was just physically part of it blown away.
Q: So that would be right here?
LIPSEY: Yeah, behind the eye and everything.
Q: Behind the eye? Was it all hair region or was it part of the actual face?
LIPSEY: To the best of my recollection it was part of the hair region and
part of the face region"
There are few discrepancies from the two accounts. In both cases he was
being interviewed so he was responding to the questions asked. Different
questions are going to draw different answers. If he didn't mention
something in one interview that he had in the other it just means he
wasn't asked about that particular item. The only discrepancy I noticed
was a minor one. In the 1978 interview he said he was present for most of
the autopsy, occasionally getting spelled by General Wehle. In the later
interview he said he was present for the entire autopsy, not mentioning
the occasional breaks he took. In both interviews he described the wounds
the same way. Two shot entered from behind. The head shot had exited from
the front right.
OK. Let's look at that bunch of statements. He is saying that partlyPost by mainframetech
Edward Reed had others that corroborated what he said. No one
corroborated what Lipsey said, and half of what he said disagreed with his
own statement made closer to the event itself. Remember that I suggested
that you compare Lipsey's statements in the video to his statements in the
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
Some interesting quotes from that 1978 interview, Lipsey's earliest on thePost by bigdog
wasn't there.
How easily you forget my point because it disproves you contention.Post by mainframetech
If you check the testimony of Edward Reed, X-ray Technician, he
helped bring in the body and he saw it was JFK when the SHIPPING casket
was opened in the morgue. He helped put the body on the table. He
doesn't seem to mention any Richard Lipsey present.
Lipsey doesn't mention Reed either so by your reasoning that means ReedPost by Steve M. Galbraith
Most of what he recites refutes the Lifton body switching theory but he
does repeat the claim/belief that JFK was in a "body bag" when he was
removed from the casket.
Most of what he recites refutes the Lifton body switching theory but he
does repeat the claim/belief that JFK was in a "body bag" when he was
removed from the casket.
helped bring in the body and he saw it was JFK when the SHIPPING casket
was opened in the morgue. He helped put the body on the table. He
doesn't seem to mention any Richard Lipsey present.
wasn't there.
Edward Reed had others that corroborated what he said. No one
corroborated what Lipsey said, and half of what he said disagreed with his
own statement made closer to the event itself. Remember that I suggested
that you compare Lipsey's statements in the video to his statements in the
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
"Q: I have a question. How did you go from when Air Force One landed? How
did you go from Andrews to Bethesda itself?
LIPSEY: We accompanied General Wehle in a helicopter.
Q: In a helicopter. While the body was being driven?
LIPSEY: Right."
"Q: Okay, getting back to the bullets themselves, not the bullets
themselves but the entrances, can you just go over again the entrances as
you remember them?
LIPSEY: Alright, as I remember them there was one bullet that went in the
back of the head that exited and blew away part of his face. And that was
sort of high up, not high up but like this little crown on the back of
your head right there, three or four inches above your neck. And then the
other one entered at more of less the top of the neck, the other one
entered more of less at the bottom of the neck.
Q: Okay, so that would be up where the crown, not the top of the head?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the rear crown.
Q: Where that point might be on the skull bone?
LIPSEY: Exactly.
Q: Then one approximately several inches lower?
LIPSEY: Well not several but two or three inches lower.
Q: Still in the head? Or what we would call…
LIPSEY: Closer to the neck.
Q: Closer to the neck? And than one in the neck?
LIPSEY: In the lower neck region.
Q: In the back?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the very -- right as the ....
Q: Let's go back over things. Sometimes visual aids you forget. Okay, and
then according to the autopsy doctors they feel the one that entered in the
skull, in the rear of the head, exited the right side of the head?
LIPSEY: The right front, you know, the face. Not the right top, the right
front. The facial part of your face. In other words...
Q: Did that destroy his face at all? You say Presidents Kennedy, was his
face distorted?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the right side. If you looked at him straight. If you looked
at him from the left you couldn’t see anything. If you looked at him
from the right side it was just physically part of it blown away.
Q: So that would be right here?
LIPSEY: Yeah, behind the eye and everything.
Q: Behind the eye? Was it all hair region or was it part of the actual face?
LIPSEY: To the best of my recollection it was part of the hair region and
part of the face region"
There are few discrepancies from the two accounts. In both cases he was
being interviewed so he was responding to the questions asked. Different
questions are going to draw different answers. If he didn't mention
something in one interview that he had in the other it just means he
wasn't asked about that particular item. The only discrepancy I noticed
was a minor one. In the 1978 interview he said he was present for most of
the autopsy, occasionally getting spelled by General Wehle. In the later
interview he said he was present for the entire autopsy, not mentioning
the occasional breaks he took. In both interviews he described the wounds
the same way. Two shot entered from behind. The head shot had exited from
the front right.
the face was destroyed (right side). If the autopsy photos are to be
believed, there was no damage to that area.
right cheek and if Lipsey saw that flap in that configuration is would
look like damage to the face. Bill Newman saw the same thing and believed
JFK's right hear had been blown off.
Post by mainframetech
He said what he heard the
pathologists say, which is that 2 bullets struck the BOH, yet when we look
You have seen one BOH photo which was just one of many taken and you haveHe said what he heard the
pathologists say, which is that 2 bullets struck the BOH, yet when we look
no idea what those other photos revealed. The men who did see those photos
and were trained forensic medical examiners all saw enough to convince
them a bullet entered the BOH. That's good enough for me.
perfectly valid and clear for the purpose of seeing a bullet hole. But
there is none there. The photo shows the areas where the pathologists
said the bullet hole was located, but there's nothing there. And you
won't want to hear it, but the photo of the BOH is also very WRONG, since
there were over 39 eyewitnesses that there was a 'large hole' in the BOH,
right where the photo shows hair and no hole. Not only do the photos show
falseness in the reporting, but they prove they were altered as well. If
the medical examiners saw those photos, then there's no doubt they got the
wrong conclusions as to the cause of death. Naturally, the LNs reading
this will ignore completely the photographic proof just shown.
the findings of the 3 pathologists who had the body in front of them as
well as teams of highly qualified review panels who saw so many more
photos as well as x-rays.
of what I saw is somehow more right? Then why didn't you take the
challenge when I first made it, to point out the bullet hole location
using the information from the pathologists as to the location of the
bullet hole? Was it because you couldn't see any bullet hole? I never
heard you comment after looking, or did you avoid looking too so you could
have 'plausible denial'? It doesn't take experts to see that there is no
bullet hole in the BOH of that photo, and one photo is all that's needed
to tell that there's no bullet hole.
As well, you haven't found any explanation for there to be hair all
over the BOH, when over 39 eyewitnesses said they saw a 'large hole'
there. Many of them were medically trained and knew what they were
describing.
I'm having a hard time believing that you fell for that, since it was
explained to you long ago. Here's what Humes said about the 'red spot':
"Humes’ comments regarding the supposed higher wound during his
HSCA testimony are particularly telling. After several failed attempts to
get both Humes and Boswell to agree the inshoot was high, the
HSCA’s Charles Petty, MD had another go with Humes, this time
concerning the possibility a red spot in the autopsy photos visible at the
top of JFK’s otherwise pristine rear scalp was the inshoot. Gazing
together at the photograph showing the all but unblemished rear of
JFK’s skull, Humes, with Boswell sitting alongside him, responded:
“I don’t know what that [red spot] is. No. 1, I can assure
you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no
defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don’t
know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don’t, I
just don’t know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance.”
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm
Post by bigdog
What I do know is that at scalp had been pulled away from the
skull and if it was pulled back up for that picture, it may not have lined
up with the hole in the scalp making the hole harder to see. It's also
possible the entry wound is hidden under the hair. In any case, it would
be very silly of me to think with my complete lack of training in forensic
medicine that I could look at one photo and make a better determination
than the three pathologists who conducted the autopsy and teams of the
best medical examiners in the country who got to see far more and better
quality photos and x-rays than I have. What kind of moron would do
something like that?
The moron would be the one that thought that it would have to take anWhat I do know is that at scalp had been pulled away from the
skull and if it was pulled back up for that picture, it may not have lined
up with the hole in the scalp making the hole harder to see. It's also
possible the entry wound is hidden under the hair. In any case, it would
be very silly of me to think with my complete lack of training in forensic
medicine that I could look at one photo and make a better determination
than the three pathologists who conducted the autopsy and teams of the
best medical examiners in the country who got to see far more and better
quality photos and x-rays than I have. What kind of moron would do
something like that?
expert to determine if there was a bullet-sized hole in the BOH. Anyone
can see plainly that there is no such thing.
Post by bigdog
You are making a big deal about not being able to see a small entry wound
in the BOH. Apparently it doesn't bother you that the large blowout in the
BOH that you claim was there doesn't show up in that photo either. Got any
explanation for that?
Of course! I've addressed that recently. You probably missed it,You are making a big deal about not being able to see a small entry wound
in the BOH. Apparently it doesn't bother you that the large blowout in the
BOH that you claim was there doesn't show up in that photo either. Got any
explanation for that?
which you tend to do. I've pointed out that the photo of the BOH was
altered, and there is no doubt about it. Sworn testimony says there was a
'large hole' there, and yet the photo shows what the original government
report told about, which was no large hole in the BOH. Whoever altered
the autopsy photos forgot to put in the bullet hole, but they didn't
forget to tell Ida Dox to put it in to her drawing of the original photo.
Talk about hilarious! The drawing has a bullet hole, and the photo it
came from has nothing! LOL!
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
Post by bigdog
Depends on the questions.Post by mainframetech
see the difference. And it's not due to different questions.
Why would you expect him to give the same answers to different questions?Post by bigdog
Both were interviews and the questions were different so naturally the
answers would be different.
Oh, get away! His 2 statements did not agree, and it is simple toPost by mainframetech
Go ahead, look for the bullet entry! When you can't find it, you'll
have to call Lipsey a liar.
And don't forget his mismatch in his HSCA statement and his video.
More lies.
There were no lies in either of the two statements. They are compatible.Go ahead, look for the bullet entry! When you can't find it, you'll
have to call Lipsey a liar.
And don't forget his mismatch in his HSCA statement and his video.
More lies.
Both were interviews and the questions were different so naturally the
answers would be different.
see the difference. And it's not due to different questions.
Post by bigdog
who weighed in described one casket.
WRONG! And you've been given an answer to that many times. Don'tPost by mainframetech
there were 2 caskets and they arrived at different times, and you still
try to pretend that the evidence didn't happen! That's weird! You base
your imaginary story on guesses as to road conditions, and speed of
driving, when you have flat statements of what had transpired in reality.
And of course, you've left out the time spent at the main entrance while
the family got out of the ambulance.
There is no sworn testimony by anyone that two caskets arrived. EverybodyPost by bigdog
imaginary shipping casket to get to Bethesda 42 minute before the bronze
casket. For one it's only a 40 minute drive from Andrews to Bethesda and
that is if you don't have a police escort. The ambulance had a huge head
start on any shipping casket that would have been unloaded from AF1 after
all the cameras and witnesses had left the area. Even if the shipping
casket had been sent to Bethesda by teleportation, it could not have
arrived 42 minutes before the bronze casket.
I wonder about you. You get sworn testimony and corroboration thatPost by mainframetech
Now here's a final statement from Lipsey, since you're so determined to
"The ceremonial troop in Washington had been arranged to meet the body at
Andrews. Put it in a hearse. We had a decoy hearse because we knew there
was a mob waiting at Bethesda Naval Hospital. So we got in a couple of
these helicopters with our honor guard when they left and flew over to the
hospital to get there before they did. And when they came in, one of the
hearses went right up to the front door. All of the crowd, of course,
rushed over there. The one with the body in it went around to the back
where the morgue was and we unloaded it. We met them in the back and
unloaded it right there to avoid the news media and the crowd and
everything else."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
And while Lipsey said the casket went by road, there was no choice that
it went by helicopter because it got to the morgue 42 minutes BEFORE the
empty Bronze casket. Lipsey has clearly said there were 2 ambulances, one
was 'decoy', and one went to the back door with the body, and the other
went to the main entrance.
I've showed you the time line that would have made it impossible for yourNow here's a final statement from Lipsey, since you're so determined to
"The ceremonial troop in Washington had been arranged to meet the body at
Andrews. Put it in a hearse. We had a decoy hearse because we knew there
was a mob waiting at Bethesda Naval Hospital. So we got in a couple of
these helicopters with our honor guard when they left and flew over to the
hospital to get there before they did. And when they came in, one of the
hearses went right up to the front door. All of the crowd, of course,
rushed over there. The one with the body in it went around to the back
where the morgue was and we unloaded it. We met them in the back and
unloaded it right there to avoid the news media and the crowd and
everything else."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
And while Lipsey said the casket went by road, there was no choice that
it went by helicopter because it got to the morgue 42 minutes BEFORE the
empty Bronze casket. Lipsey has clearly said there were 2 ambulances, one
was 'decoy', and one went to the back door with the body, and the other
went to the main entrance.
imaginary shipping casket to get to Bethesda 42 minute before the bronze
casket. For one it's only a 40 minute drive from Andrews to Bethesda and
that is if you don't have a police escort. The ambulance had a huge head
start on any shipping casket that would have been unloaded from AF1 after
all the cameras and witnesses had left the area. Even if the shipping
casket had been sent to Bethesda by teleportation, it could not have
arrived 42 minutes before the bronze casket.
there were 2 caskets and they arrived at different times, and you still
try to pretend that the evidence didn't happen! That's weird! You base
your imaginary story on guesses as to road conditions, and speed of
driving, when you have flat statements of what had transpired in reality.
And of course, you've left out the time spent at the main entrance while
the family got out of the ambulance.
who weighed in described one casket.
begin to pretend that you never heard the answer. Dennis David gave his
statement that he helped to bring in the SHIPPING casket, and then at
least a half hour later he saw the motorcade and ambulance that Jackie was
in with the Bronze casket arrive at the main entrance of the hospital.
The family came in and was taken by elevator to the 17th floor to the VIP
suite.
So you've got the same person seeing separate casket arrivals with
time in between. He brought in the SHIPPING casket at 6:35pm, and after
at least a half hour (by his own statement) he saw the ambulance with the
Bronze casket from AF1 stop at the main entrance. That makes it about
7:05pm for the arrival at the main entrance, and then the ambulance let
off the family and went around back to the morgue, which should be another
10 minutes, which makes it 7:17pm that the Bronze casket reached the
morgue.
Post by bigdog
They differed on the time of arrival
and the type of casket but nobody said two caskets arrived. Nobody except
silly conspiracy hobbyists who seem to be incapable of logical thought.
WRONG! See above.They differed on the time of arrival
and the type of casket but nobody said two caskets arrived. Nobody except
silly conspiracy hobbyists who seem to be incapable of logical thought.
Post by bigdog
You can add a couple minutes it would have taken to drop the passengers
off at the front entrance and then drive around to the morgue loading
dock. You still can't come close to getting your helicopter to Bethesda 42
minutes before bronze casket. Your 42 minute time differential is
ludicrous. For one you are comparing one person's ESTIMATE of the time of
arrival with Sibert's statement that by 7:17 the body was being prepared
for autopsy.
Sibert was clear, the body was NOT being prepared at that time, thatYou can add a couple minutes it would have taken to drop the passengers
off at the front entrance and then drive around to the morgue loading
dock. You still can't come close to getting your helicopter to Bethesda 42
minutes before bronze casket. Your 42 minute time differential is
ludicrous. For one you are comparing one person's ESTIMATE of the time of
arrival with Sibert's statement that by 7:17 the body was being prepared
for autopsy.
was the beginning of preparation supposedly, and Sibert was the one saying
it.
Post by bigdog
You aren't even comparing two time of arrival estimates. How
silly is that? Your 42 minute time differential has been refuted just
about every way imaginable and yet you refuse to let go of it. It is an
essential component for what you want to believe happened and so you cling
to it no matter how many ways it is shown to you that it is impossible.
You might fool yourself with this nonsense but no reasonable person is
going to be swayed by such drivel. IOW, you are wasting your time, but
that pretty much describes 54 years of the conspiracy hobby.
Saying it won't make it so. Your complete inability to follow theYou aren't even comparing two time of arrival estimates. How
silly is that? Your 42 minute time differential has been refuted just
about every way imaginable and yet you refuse to let go of it. It is an
essential component for what you want to believe happened and so you cling
to it no matter how many ways it is shown to you that it is impossible.
You might fool yourself with this nonsense but no reasonable person is
going to be swayed by such drivel. IOW, you are wasting your time, but
that pretty much describes 54 years of the conspiracy hobby.
timing is shown by your foolish comments about the time. There is indeed
42 minutes, from 6:35pm to 7:17pm. That's 42 minutes that Humes and
Boswell had to do their clandestine work on the body. At 7:17pm as shown
above, the Bronze casket arrives for the first time, and Humes and Boswell
have to stop any work.
Further, though it was Sibert that said the preparation began at
7:17pm, that left almost an hour to sit around. I don't think that's what
happened. I think that Sibert and O'Neill sent out the Bronze casket now
with the body in it, to be found by the honor team and to be brought back
at 8:00pm, and with the help of Sibert and O'Neill, they took the body out
of the casket as they told everyone, and put it on the table, which
satisfied the narrative for the FBI men. That was the third arrival, the
second for the Bronze casket.
Chris
John McAdams
2018-07-20 00:39:12 UTC
Post by mainframetech
"Humes comments regarding the supposed higher wound during his
HSCA testimony are particularly telling. After several failed attempts to
get both Humes and Boswell to agree the inshoot was high, the
HSCAs Charles Petty, MD had another go with Humes, this time
concerning the possibility a red spot in the autopsy photos visible at the
top of JFKs otherwise pristine rear scalp was the inshoot. Gazing
together at the photograph showing the all but unblemished rear of
I dont know what that [red spot] is. No. 1, I can assure
you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no
defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I dont
know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I dont, I
just dont know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance.
This is the Humes you believe altered Kennedy's body, was part of aPost by bigdog
So you think your amateurish opinion based on looking at one photo trumps
the findings of the 3 pathologists who had the body in front of them as
well as teams of highly qualified review panels who saw so many more
photos as well as x-rays.
I'm having a hard time believing that you fell for that, since it wasSo you think your amateurish opinion based on looking at one photo trumps
the findings of the 3 pathologists who had the body in front of them as
well as teams of highly qualified review panels who saw so many more
photos as well as x-rays.
"Humes comments regarding the supposed higher wound during his
HSCA testimony are particularly telling. After several failed attempts to
get both Humes and Boswell to agree the inshoot was high, the
HSCAs Charles Petty, MD had another go with Humes, this time
concerning the possibility a red spot in the autopsy photos visible at the
top of JFKs otherwise pristine rear scalp was the inshoot. Gazing
together at the photograph showing the all but unblemished rear of
I dont know what that [red spot] is. No. 1, I can assure
you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no
defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I dont
know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I dont, I
just dont know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance.
conspiracy to conceal the nature of the wounds.
But when he won't admit that he goofed about the location of the
wound, he's a fearless truth teller.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mainframetech
2018-07-21 00:01:56 UTC
Post by John McAdams
conspiracy to conceal the nature of the wounds.
But when he won't admit that he goofed about the location of the
wound, he's a fearless truth teller.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Poor ole Humes was put on the spot when he was called and given hisPost by mainframetech
"Humes’ comments regarding the supposed higher wound during his
HSCA testimony are particularly telling. After several failed attempts to
get both Humes and Boswell to agree the inshoot was high, the
HSCA’s Charles Petty, MD had another go with Humes, this time
concerning the possibility a red spot in the autopsy photos visible at the
top of JFK’s otherwise pristine rear scalp was the inshoot. Gazing
together at the photograph showing the all but unblemished rear of
“I don’t know what that [red spot] is. No. 1, I can assure
you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no
defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don’t
know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don’t, I
just don’t know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance.”
This is the Humes you believe altered Kennedy's body, was part of aPost by bigdog
So you think your amateurish opinion based on looking at one photo trumps
the findings of the 3 pathologists who had the body in front of them as
well as teams of highly qualified review panels who saw so many more
photos as well as x-rays.
I'm having a hard time believing that you fell for that, since it wasSo you think your amateurish opinion based on looking at one photo trumps
the findings of the 3 pathologists who had the body in front of them as
well as teams of highly qualified review panels who saw so many more
photos as well as x-rays.
"Humes’ comments regarding the supposed higher wound during his
HSCA testimony are particularly telling. After several failed attempts to
get both Humes and Boswell to agree the inshoot was high, the
HSCA’s Charles Petty, MD had another go with Humes, this time
concerning the possibility a red spot in the autopsy photos visible at the
top of JFK’s otherwise pristine rear scalp was the inshoot. Gazing
together at the photograph showing the all but unblemished rear of
“I don’t know what that [red spot] is. No. 1, I can assure
you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no
defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don’t
know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don’t, I
just don’t know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance.”
conspiracy to conceal the nature of the wounds.
But when he won't admit that he goofed about the location of the
wound, he's a fearless truth teller.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
instructions as to what to do with the body, and his Autopsy Report (AR).
He was caught lying in a few places, including his morning after phone
call to find out about the tracheotomy, which a number of witnesses showed
was wrong.
But the little 'red spot' can be seen by anyone in one of the autopsy
photos, and it's clear that it's not a bullet hole in the BOH. So copying
out Humes' comments about it are apropos to show that it wasn't anything
of note.
Chris
John McAdams
2018-07-21 00:06:16 UTC
Post by mainframetech
instructions as to what to do with the body, and his Autopsy Report (AR).
He was caught lying in a few places, including his morning after phone
call to find out about the tracheotomy, which a number of witnesses showed
was wrong.
Yep, your sort of witnesses.Post by John McAdams
But when he won't admit that he goofed about the location of the
wound, he's a fearless truth teller.
Poor ole Humes was put on the spot when he was called and given hisBut when he won't admit that he goofed about the location of the
wound, he's a fearless truth teller.
instructions as to what to do with the body, and his Autopsy Report (AR).
He was caught lying in a few places, including his morning after phone
call to find out about the tracheotomy, which a number of witnesses showed
was wrong.
Post by mainframetech
But the little 'red spot' can be seen by anyone in one of the autopsy
photos, and it's clear that it's not a bullet hole in the BOH.
That's absolutely stunning chutzpah!But the little 'red spot' can be seen by anyone in one of the autopsy
photos, and it's clear that it's not a bullet hole in the BOH.
It was clear to all the medical panels that the "red spot" was an
entry defect for a bullet. We are talking about the Chark,
Rockefeller and HSCA panels.
And they all had a stereo pair of camera original transparencies to
look at.
But amateur buffs looking at mediocre images on the Internet "see"
something different.
But a funny coincidence, it's what they *want* to see.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mainframetech
2018-07-22 18:28:18 UTC
Post by John McAdams
Odd you would say that. My witnesses were Dr. Livingston, NursePost by mainframetech
instructions as to what to do with the body, and his Autopsy Report (AR).
He was caught lying in a few places, including his morning after phone
call to find out about the tracheotomy, which a number of witnesses showed
was wrong.
Yep, your sort of witnesses.Post by John McAdams
But when he won't admit that he goofed about the location of the
wound, he's a fearless truth teller.
Poor ole Humes was put on the spot when he was called and given hisBut when he won't admit that he goofed about the location of the
wound, he's a fearless truth teller.
instructions as to what to do with the body, and his Autopsy Report (AR).
He was caught lying in a few places, including his morning after phone
call to find out about the tracheotomy, which a number of witnesses showed
was wrong.
Audrey Bell, and Radiologist Dr. Ebersole. I saw them as upstanding folks
of the medical community. Where did you get the idea there was something
wrong with them, as your comment suggests? If they are invalid witnesses,
I need to know so I don't go around using them all the time.
Post by John McAdams
It was clear to all the medical panels that the "red spot" was an
entry defect for a bullet. We are talking about the Chark,
Rockefeller and HSCA panels.
Interesting. I didn't see that conclusion anywhere in my reading.Post by mainframetech
But the little 'red spot' can be seen by anyone in one of the autopsy
photos, and it's clear that it's not a bullet hole in the BOH.
That's absolutely stunning chutzpah!But the little 'red spot' can be seen by anyone in one of the autopsy
photos, and it's clear that it's not a bullet hole in the BOH.
It was clear to all the medical panels that the "red spot" was an
entry defect for a bullet. We are talking about the Chark,
Rockefeller and HSCA panels.
That's why I quoted Humes who was there and saw the BOH and said first,
that he didn't know what the 'red spot' was, and second, that he had seen
the underlying skull and there was no bullet hole there to match the
surface scalp. Was he lying again? I think not. He had to tell the
truth sometime. Here's his story:
"Dr. Petty then continued, "Also on this same photograph is a
ruler and approximately 2 centimeters or so down the ruler and
just to the right of it is a second apparent area of defect, and this
has been enlarged and is shown to you in an enlargement, I guess
No. 16, which shows you right opposite the 1 centimeter mark on
the ruler this defect or what appears to be a defect."
Thereafter, skipping a small portion and going to the very next
page, 40, you replied, "I don't know what that is. No. 1, I can
assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there
was no defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I
don't know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I
just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0907_7_Humes.pdf
Post by John McAdams
And they all had a stereo pair of camera original transparencies to
look at.
But amateur buffs looking at mediocre images on the Internet "see"
something different.
But a funny coincidence, it's what they *want* to see.
What I can see is Humes saying that he saw NO bullet hole under theAnd they all had a stereo pair of camera original transparencies to
look at.
But amateur buffs looking at mediocre images on the Internet "see"
something different.
But a funny coincidence, it's what they *want* to see.
scalp where the red spot was, and that the 'red spot' was nothing of any
importance. Stereoscopic photos of the 'red spot' will indeed show a 'red
spot', but not a hole. I saw 'on the internet' what Humes said he saw.
Now do we have phony photos here, or do we have false statements from
panels?
I will say that if you want to see a bullet hole, you just have to
look at the Ida Dox drawing of the same photo and she was obviously told
to put in a bullet hole, which shows nicely in her drawing. It just isn't
in the photo she copied. I hope they didn't show her drawing as if it was
the photo.
Photo:
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
Drawing:
Loading Image...
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-24 21:00:21 UTC
Post by mainframetech
Audrey Bell, and Radiologist Dr. Ebersole. I saw them as upstanding folks
of the medical community. Where did you get the idea there was something
wrong with them, as your comment suggests? If they are invalid witnesses,
I need to know so I don't go around using them all the time.
That's why I quoted Humes who was there and saw the BOH and said first,
that he didn't know what the 'red spot' was, and second, that he had seen
the underlying skull and there was no bullet hole there to match the
surface scalp. Was he lying again? I think not. He had to tell the
"Dr. Petty then continued, "Also on this same photograph is a
ruler and approximately 2 centimeters or so down the ruler and
just to the right of it is a second apparent area of defect, and this
has been enlarged and is shown to you in an enlargement, I guess
No. 16, which shows you right opposite the 1 centimeter mark on
the ruler this defect or what appears to be a defect."
Thereafter, skipping a small portion and going to the very next
page, 40, you replied, "I don't know what that is. No. 1, I can
assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there
was no defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I
don't know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I
just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0907_7_Humes.pdf
scalp where the red spot was, and that the 'red spot' was nothing of any
importance. Stereoscopic photos of the 'red spot' will indeed show a 'red
spot', but not a hole. I saw 'on the internet' what Humes said he saw.
Now do we have phony photos here, or do we have false statements from
panels?
I will say that if you want to see a bullet hole, you just have to
look at the Ida Dox drawing of the same photo and she was obviously told
to put in a bullet hole, which shows nicely in her drawing. It just isn't
in the photo she copied. I hope they didn't show her drawing as if it was
the photo.
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1eAF6xNtTsY/T6b3bOQ7wgI/AAAAAAAAIkk/sfjIkGhcrRQ/s702/Dox-Drawing-Of-JFK-Autopsy-Photo.jpg
Chris
Dox admitted that Baden ordered her to alter her drawing to highlightPost by John McAdams
Odd you would say that. My witnesses were Dr. Livingston, NursePost by mainframetech
instructions as to what to do with the body, and his Autopsy Report (AR).
He was caught lying in a few places, including his morning after phone
call to find out about the tracheotomy, which a number of witnesses showed
was wrong.
Yep, your sort of witnesses.Post by John McAdams
But when he won't admit that he goofed about the location of the
wound, he's a fearless truth teller.
Poor ole Humes was put on the spot when he was called and given hisBut when he won't admit that he goofed about the location of the
wound, he's a fearless truth teller.
instructions as to what to do with the body, and his Autopsy Report (AR).
He was caught lying in a few places, including his morning after phone
call to find out about the tracheotomy, which a number of witnesses showed
was wrong.
Audrey Bell, and Radiologist Dr. Ebersole. I saw them as upstanding folks
of the medical community. Where did you get the idea there was something
wrong with them, as your comment suggests? If they are invalid witnesses,
I need to know so I don't go around using them all the time.
Post by John McAdams
It was clear to all the medical panels that the "red spot" was an
entry defect for a bullet. We are talking about the Chark,
Rockefeller and HSCA panels.
Interesting. I didn't see that conclusion anywhere in my reading.Post by mainframetech
But the little 'red spot' can be seen by anyone in one of the autopsy
photos, and it's clear that it's not a bullet hole in the BOH.
That's absolutely stunning chutzpah!But the little 'red spot' can be seen by anyone in one of the autopsy
photos, and it's clear that it's not a bullet hole in the BOH.
It was clear to all the medical panels that the "red spot" was an
entry defect for a bullet. We are talking about the Chark,
Rockefeller and HSCA panels.
That's why I quoted Humes who was there and saw the BOH and said first,
that he didn't know what the 'red spot' was, and second, that he had seen
the underlying skull and there was no bullet hole there to match the
surface scalp. Was he lying again? I think not. He had to tell the
"Dr. Petty then continued, "Also on this same photograph is a
ruler and approximately 2 centimeters or so down the ruler and
just to the right of it is a second apparent area of defect, and this
has been enlarged and is shown to you in an enlargement, I guess
No. 16, which shows you right opposite the 1 centimeter mark on
the ruler this defect or what appears to be a defect."
Thereafter, skipping a small portion and going to the very next
page, 40, you replied, "I don't know what that is. No. 1, I can
assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there
was no defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I
don't know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I
just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0907_7_Humes.pdf
Post by John McAdams
And they all had a stereo pair of camera original transparencies to
look at.
But amateur buffs looking at mediocre images on the Internet "see"
something different.
But a funny coincidence, it's what they *want* to see.
What I can see is Humes saying that he saw NO bullet hole under theAnd they all had a stereo pair of camera original transparencies to
look at.
But amateur buffs looking at mediocre images on the Internet "see"
something different.
But a funny coincidence, it's what they *want* to see.
scalp where the red spot was, and that the 'red spot' was nothing of any
importance. Stereoscopic photos of the 'red spot' will indeed show a 'red
spot', but not a hole. I saw 'on the internet' what Humes said he saw.
Now do we have phony photos here, or do we have false statements from
panels?
I will say that if you want to see a bullet hole, you just have to
look at the Ida Dox drawing of the same photo and she was obviously told
to put in a bullet hole, which shows nicely in her drawing. It just isn't
in the photo she copied. I hope they didn't show her drawing as if it was
the photo.
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1eAF6xNtTsY/T6b3bOQ7wgI/AAAAAAAAIkk/sfjIkGhcrRQ/s702/Dox-Drawing-Of-JFK-Autopsy-Photo.jpg
Chris
that thing on the back of the head and make it look more like a bullet
wound.
John McAdams
2018-07-24 21:10:51 UTC
Post by mainframetech
Audrey Bell, and Radiologist Dr. Ebersole. I saw them as upstanding folks
of the medical community. Where did you get the idea there was something
wrong with them, as your comment suggests? If they are invalid witnesses,
I need to know so I don't go around using them all the time.
You missed my point. You call Humes a liar when it's convenient, butPost by John McAdams
Odd you would say that. My witnesses were Dr. Livingston, NursePost by mainframetech
instructions as to what to do with the body, and his Autopsy Report (AR).
He was caught lying in a few places, including his morning after phone
call to find out about the tracheotomy, which a number of witnesses showed
was wrong.
Yep, your sort of witnesses.Post by John McAdams
But when he won't admit that he goofed about the location of the
wound, he's a fearless truth teller.
Poor ole Humes was put on the spot when he was called and given hisBut when he won't admit that he goofed about the location of the
wound, he's a fearless truth teller.
instructions as to what to do with the body, and his Autopsy Report (AR).
He was caught lying in a few places, including his morning after phone
call to find out about the tracheotomy, which a number of witnesses showed
was wrong.
Audrey Bell, and Radiologist Dr. Ebersole. I saw them as upstanding folks
of the medical community. Where did you get the idea there was something
wrong with them, as your comment suggests? If they are invalid witnesses,
I need to know so I don't go around using them all the time.
they use him as an absolute authority on the red spot in the cowlick
area.
Post by mainframetech
That's because you have only been reading buff stuff.Post by John McAdams
It was clear to all the medical panels that the "red spot" was an
entry defect for a bullet. We are talking about the Chark,
Rockefeller and HSCA panels.
Interesting. I didn't see that conclusion anywhere in my reading.Post by mainframetech
But the little 'red spot' can be seen by anyone in one of the autopsy
photos, and it's clear that it's not a bullet hole in the BOH.
That's absolutely stunning chutzpah!But the little 'red spot' can be seen by anyone in one of the autopsy
photos, and it's clear that it's not a bullet hole in the BOH.
It was clear to all the medical panels that the "red spot" was an
entry defect for a bullet. We are talking about the Chark,
Rockefeller and HSCA panels.
Start reading here:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82#relPageId=113
Post by mainframetech
That's why I quoted Humes who was there and saw the BOH and said first,
that he didn't know what the 'red spot' was, and second, that he had seen
the underlying skull and there was no bullet hole there to match the
surface scalp. Was he lying again? I think not. He had to tell the
"Dr. Petty then continued, "Also on this same photograph is a
ruler and approximately 2 centimeters or so down the ruler and
just to the right of it is a second apparent area of defect, and this
has been enlarged and is shown to you in an enlargement, I guess
No. 16, which shows you right opposite the 1 centimeter mark on
the ruler this defect or what appears to be a defect."
Thereafter, skipping a small portion and going to the very next
page, 40, you replied, "I don't know what that is. No. 1, I can
assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there
was no defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I
don't know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I
just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0907_7_Humes.pdf
What I can see is Humes saying that he saw NO bullet hole under the
scalp where the red spot was, and that the 'red spot' was nothing of any
importance. Stereoscopic photos of the 'red spot' will indeed show a 'red
spot', but not a hole. I saw 'on the internet' what Humes said he saw.
Now do we have phony photos here, or do we have false statements from
panels?
So the panels were lying?That's why I quoted Humes who was there and saw the BOH and said first,
that he didn't know what the 'red spot' was, and second, that he had seen
the underlying skull and there was no bullet hole there to match the
surface scalp. Was he lying again? I think not. He had to tell the
"Dr. Petty then continued, "Also on this same photograph is a
ruler and approximately 2 centimeters or so down the ruler and
just to the right of it is a second apparent area of defect, and this
has been enlarged and is shown to you in an enlargement, I guess
No. 16, which shows you right opposite the 1 centimeter mark on
the ruler this defect or what appears to be a defect."
Thereafter, skipping a small portion and going to the very next
page, 40, you replied, "I don't know what that is. No. 1, I can
assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there
was no defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I
don't know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I
just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0907_7_Humes.pdf
What I can see is Humes saying that he saw NO bullet hole under the
scalp where the red spot was, and that the 'red spot' was nothing of any
importance. Stereoscopic photos of the 'red spot' will indeed show a 'red
spot', but not a hole. I saw 'on the internet' what Humes said he saw.
Now do we have phony photos here, or do we have false statements from
panels?
But Humes, a huge lier in your world, was finally telling the truth.
Post by mainframetech
I will say that if you want to see a bullet hole, you just have to
look at the Ida Dox drawing of the same photo and she was obviously told
to put in a bullet hole, which shows nicely in her drawing. It just isn't
in the photo she copied. I hope they didn't show her drawing as if it was
the photo.
Read the link I posted above. The FPP looked at the original photos,I will say that if you want to see a bullet hole, you just have to
look at the Ida Dox drawing of the same photo and she was obviously told
to put in a bullet hole, which shows nicely in her drawing. It just isn't
in the photo she copied. I hope they didn't show her drawing as if it was
the photo.
and x-rays.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-25 17:13:51 UTC
Post by John McAdams
they use him as an absolute authority on the red spot in the cowlick
area.
False charge. The alterationist don't believe in the red spot in thePost by mainframetech
Audrey Bell, and Radiologist Dr. Ebersole. I saw them as upstanding folks
of the medical community. Where did you get the idea there was something
wrong with them, as your comment suggests? If they are invalid witnesses,
I need to know so I don't go around using them all the time.
You missed my point. You call Humes a liar when it's convenient, butPost by John McAdams
Odd you would say that. My witnesses were Dr. Livingston, NursePost by mainframetech
instructions as to what to do with the body, and his Autopsy Report (AR).
He was caught lying in a few places, including his morning after phone
call to find out about the tracheotomy, which a number of witnesses showed
was wrong.
Yep, your sort of witnesses.Post by John McAdams
But when he won't admit that he goofed about the location of the
wound, he's a fearless truth teller.
Poor ole Humes was put on the spot when he was called and given hisBut when he won't admit that he goofed about the location of the
wound, he's a fearless truth teller.
instructions as to what to do with the body, and his Autopsy Report (AR).
He was caught lying in a few places, including his morning after phone
call to find out about the tracheotomy, which a number of witnesses showed
was wrong.
Audrey Bell, and Radiologist Dr. Ebersole. I saw them as upstanding folks
of the medical community. Where did you get the idea there was something
wrong with them, as your comment suggests? If they are invalid witnesses,
I need to know so I don't go around using them all the time.
they use him as an absolute authority on the red spot in the cowlick
area.
cowlick area. They don't think there was ANY entrance wound in the back of
the head. Humes said it was just a blood clot. Don't you believe Humes?
Post by John McAdams
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82#relPageId=113
Yes, Duh! What do you want to do, start WWIII?Post by mainframetech
That's because you have only been reading buff stuff.Post by John McAdams
It was clear to all the medical panels that the "red spot" was an
entry defect for a bullet. We are talking about the Chark,
Rockefeller and HSCA panels.
Interesting. I didn't see that conclusion anywhere in my reading.Post by mainframetech
But the little 'red spot' can be seen by anyone in one of the autopsy
photos, and it's clear that it's not a bullet hole in the BOH.
That's absolutely stunning chutzpah!But the little 'red spot' can be seen by anyone in one of the autopsy
photos, and it's clear that it's not a bullet hole in the BOH.
It was clear to all the medical panels that the "red spot" was an
entry defect for a bullet. We are talking about the Chark,
Rockefeller and HSCA panels.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82#relPageId=113
Post by mainframetech
That's why I quoted Humes who was there and saw the BOH and said first,
that he didn't know what the 'red spot' was, and second, that he had seen
the underlying skull and there was no bullet hole there to match the
surface scalp. Was he lying again? I think not. He had to tell the
"Dr. Petty then continued, "Also on this same photograph is a
ruler and approximately 2 centimeters or so down the ruler and
just to the right of it is a second apparent area of defect, and this
has been enlarged and is shown to you in an enlargement, I guess
No. 16, which shows you right opposite the 1 centimeter mark on
the ruler this defect or what appears to be a defect."
Thereafter, skipping a small portion and going to the very next
page, 40, you replied, "I don't know what that is. No. 1, I can
assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there
was no defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I
don't know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I
just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0907_7_Humes.pdf
What I can see is Humes saying that he saw NO bullet hole under the
scalp where the red spot was, and that the 'red spot' was nothing of any
importance. Stereoscopic photos of the 'red spot' will indeed show a 'red
spot', but not a hole. I saw 'on the internet' what Humes said he saw.
Now do we have phony photos here, or do we have false statements from
panels?
So the panels were lying?That's why I quoted Humes who was there and saw the BOH and said first,
that he didn't know what the 'red spot' was, and second, that he had seen
the underlying skull and there was no bullet hole there to match the
surface scalp. Was he lying again? I think not. He had to tell the
"Dr. Petty then continued, "Also on this same photograph is a
ruler and approximately 2 centimeters or so down the ruler and
just to the right of it is a second apparent area of defect, and this
has been enlarged and is shown to you in an enlargement, I guess
No. 16, which shows you right opposite the 1 centimeter mark on
the ruler this defect or what appears to be a defect."
Thereafter, skipping a small portion and going to the very next
page, 40, you replied, "I don't know what that is. No. 1, I can
assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there
was no defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I
don't know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I
just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0907_7_Humes.pdf
What I can see is Humes saying that he saw NO bullet hole under the
scalp where the red spot was, and that the 'red spot' was nothing of any
importance. Stereoscopic photos of the 'red spot' will indeed show a 'red
spot', but not a hole. I saw 'on the internet' what Humes said he saw.
Now do we have phony photos here, or do we have false statements from
panels?
WHen? He always guesses his way through life.
Post by John McAdams
and x-rays.
Is that after the CIA agent had altered them or just copies not thePost by mainframetech
I will say that if you want to see a bullet hole, you just have to
look at the Ida Dox drawing of the same photo and she was obviously told
to put in a bullet hole, which shows nicely in her drawing. It just isn't
in the photo she copied. I hope they didn't show her drawing as if it was
the photo.
Read the link I posted above. The FPP looked at the original photos,I will say that if you want to see a bullet hole, you just have to
look at the Ida Dox drawing of the same photo and she was obviously told
to put in a bullet hole, which shows nicely in her drawing. It just isn't
in the photo she copied. I hope they didn't show her drawing as if it was
the photo.
and x-rays.
originals?
We have the Fox set and there wasn't time to alter those.
n***@gmail.com
2018-07-25 17:18:45 UTC
Post by John McAdams
they use him as an absolute authority on the red spot in the cowlick
area.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82#relPageId=113
The HSCA medical panel had the ability to look at the photos with 10XPost by mainframetech
Audrey Bell, and Radiologist Dr. Ebersole. I saw them as upstanding folks
of the medical community. Where did you get the idea there was something
wrong with them, as your comment suggests? If they are invalid witnesses,
I need to know so I don't go around using them all the time.
You missed my point. You call Humes a liar when it's convenient, butPost by John McAdams
Odd you would say that. My witnesses were Dr. Livingston, NursePost by mainframetech
instructions as to what to do with the body, and his Autopsy Report (AR).
He was caught lying in a few places, including his morning after phone
call to find out about the tracheotomy, which a number of witnesses showed
was wrong.
Yep, your sort of witnesses.Post by John McAdams
But when he won't admit that he goofed about the location of the
wound, he's a fearless truth teller.
Poor ole Humes was put on the spot when he was called and given hisBut when he won't admit that he goofed about the location of the
wound, he's a fearless truth teller.
instructions as to what to do with the body, and his Autopsy Report (AR).
He was caught lying in a few places, including his morning after phone
call to find out about the tracheotomy, which a number of witnesses showed
was wrong.
Audrey Bell, and Radiologist Dr. Ebersole. I saw them as upstanding folks
of the medical community. Where did you get the idea there was something
wrong with them, as your comment suggests? If they are invalid witnesses,
I need to know so I don't go around using them all the time.
they use him as an absolute authority on the red spot in the cowlick
area.
Post by mainframetech
That's because you have only been reading buff stuff.Post by John McAdams
It was clear to all the medical panels that the "red spot" was an
entry defect for a bullet. We are talking about the Chark,
Rockefeller and HSCA panels.
Interesting. I didn't see that conclusion anywhere in my reading.Post by mainframetech
But the little 'red spot' can be seen by anyone in one of the autopsy
photos, and it's clear that it's not a bullet hole in the BOH.
That's absolutely stunning chutzpah!But the little 'red spot' can be seen by anyone in one of the autopsy
photos, and it's clear that it's not a bullet hole in the BOH.
It was clear to all the medical panels that the "red spot" was an
entry defect for a bullet. We are talking about the Chark,
Rockefeller and HSCA panels.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82#relPageId=113
magnification. And the ability to use "stereoscopic visualization" to see
3-dimensional views of the 2 color transparencies.
Chris, do you have those capabilities on your computer?
Mark
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-26 14:51:10 UTC
Post by n***@gmail.com
YOU miss the point. Even the biggest liar in the world, Donald Trump,Post by John McAdams
they use him as an absolute authority on the red spot in the cowlick
area.
Post by mainframetech
Audrey Bell, and Radiologist Dr. Ebersole. I saw them as upstanding folks
of the medical community. Where did you get the idea there was something
wrong with them, as your comment suggests? If they are invalid witnesses,
I need to know so I don't go around using them all the time.
You missed my point. You call Humes a liar when it's convenient, butPost by John McAdams
Odd you would say that. My witnesses were Dr. Livingston, NursePost by mainframetech
instructions as to what to do with the body, and his Autopsy Report (AR).
He was caught lying in a few places, including his morning after phone
call to find out about the tracheotomy, which a number of witnesses showed
was wrong.
Yep, your sort of witnesses.Post by John McAdams
But when he won't admit that he goofed about the location of the
wound, he's a fearless truth teller.
Poor ole Humes was put on the spot when he was called and given hisBut when he won't admit that he goofed about the location of the
wound, he's a fearless truth teller.
instructions as to what to do with the body, and his Autopsy Report (AR).
He was caught lying in a few places, including his morning after phone
call to find out about the tracheotomy, which a number of witnesses showed
was wrong.
Audrey Bell, and Radiologist Dr. Ebersole. I saw them as upstanding folks
of the medical community. Where did you get the idea there was something
wrong with them, as your comment suggests? If they are invalid witnesses,
I need to know so I don't go around using them all the time.
they use him as an absolute authority on the red spot in the cowlick
area.
can not lie ALL the time. Sometimes a chronic liar will accidentally
tell the truth without realizing it.
Post by n***@gmail.com
magnification. And the ability to use "stereoscopic visualization" to see
3-dimensional views of the 2 color transparencies.
Chris, do you have those capabilities on your computer?
Do you have those capabilities without a computer?Post by John McAdams
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82#relPageId=113
The HSCA medical panel had the ability to look at the photos with 10XPost by mainframetech
That's because you have only been reading buff stuff.Post by John McAdams
It was clear to all the medical panels that the "red spot" was an
entry defect for a bullet. We are talking about the Chark,
Rockefeller and HSCA panels.
Interesting. I didn't see that conclusion anywhere in my reading.Post by mainframetech
But the little 'red spot' can be seen by anyone in one of the autopsy
photos, and it's clear that it's not a bullet hole in the BOH.
That's absolutely stunning chutzpah!But the little 'red spot' can be seen by anyone in one of the autopsy
photos, and it's clear that it's not a bullet hole in the BOH.
It was clear to all the medical panels that the "red spot" was an
entry defect for a bullet. We are talking about the Chark,
Rockefeller and HSCA panels.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82#relPageId=113
magnification. And the ability to use "stereoscopic visualization" to see
3-dimensional views of the 2 color transparencies.
Chris, do you have those capabilities on your computer?
Do you have Windows AI yet?
bigdog
2018-07-26 19:40:12 UTC
Post by n***@gmail.com
magnification. And the ability to use "stereoscopic visualization" to see
3-dimensional views of the 2 color transparencies.
Chris, do you have those capabilities on your computer?
Chris doesn't need that. He sees what he wants to see.Post by John McAdams
they use him as an absolute authority on the red spot in the cowlick
area.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82#relPageId=113
The HSCA medical panel had the ability to look at the photos with 10XPost by mainframetech
Audrey Bell, and Radiologist Dr. Ebersole. I saw them as upstanding folks
of the medical community. Where did you get the idea there was something
wrong with them, as your comment suggests? If they are invalid witnesses,
I need to know so I don't go around using them all the time.
You missed my point. You call Humes a liar when it's convenient, butPost by John McAdams
Odd you would say that. My witnesses were Dr. Livingston, NursePost by mainframetech
instructions as to what to do with the body, and his Autopsy Report (AR).
He was caught lying in a few places, including his morning after phone
call to find out about the tracheotomy, which a number of witnesses showed
was wrong.
Yep, your sort of witnesses.Post by John McAdams
But when he won't admit that he goofed about the location of the
wound, he's a fearless truth teller.
Poor ole Humes was put on the spot when he was called and given hisBut when he won't admit that he goofed about the location of the
wound, he's a fearless truth teller.
instructions as to what to do with the body, and his Autopsy Report (AR).
He was caught lying in a few places, including his morning after phone
call to find out about the tracheotomy, which a number of witnesses showed
was wrong.
Audrey Bell, and Radiologist Dr. Ebersole. I saw them as upstanding folks
of the medical community. Where did you get the idea there was something
wrong with them, as your comment suggests? If they are invalid witnesses,
I need to know so I don't go around using them all the time.
they use him as an absolute authority on the red spot in the cowlick
area.
Post by mainframetech
That's because you have only been reading buff stuff.Post by John McAdams
It was clear to all the medical panels that the "red spot" was an
entry defect for a bullet. We are talking about the Chark,
Rockefeller and HSCA panels.
Interesting. I didn't see that conclusion anywhere in my reading.Post by mainframetech
But the little 'red spot' can be seen by anyone in one of the autopsy
photos, and it's clear that it's not a bullet hole in the BOH.
That's absolutely stunning chutzpah!But the little 'red spot' can be seen by anyone in one of the autopsy
photos, and it's clear that it's not a bullet hole in the BOH.
It was clear to all the medical panels that the "red spot" was an
entry defect for a bullet. We are talking about the Chark,
Rockefeller and HSCA panels.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82#relPageId=113
magnification. And the ability to use "stereoscopic visualization" to see
3-dimensional views of the 2 color transparencies.
Chris, do you have those capabilities on your computer?
mainframetech
2018-07-28 04:10:16 UTC
Post by bigdog
WRONG again! I see evidence mainly from sworn testimony, documents andPost by n***@gmail.com
magnification. And the ability to use "stereoscopic visualization" to see
3-dimensional views of the 2 color transparencies.
Chris, do you have those capabilities on your computer?
Chris doesn't need that. He sees what he wants to see.Post by John McAdams
they use him as an absolute authority on the red spot in the cowlick
area.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82#relPageId=113
The HSCA medical panel had the ability to look at the photos with 10XPost by mainframetech
Audrey Bell, and Radiologist Dr. Ebersole. I saw them as upstanding folks
of the medical community. Where did you get the idea there was something
wrong with them, as your comment suggests? If they are invalid witnesses,
I need to know so I don't go around using them all the time.
You missed my point. You call Humes a liar when it's convenient, butPost by John McAdams
Odd you would say that. My witnesses were Dr. Livingston, NursePost by mainframetech
instructions as to what to do with the body, and his Autopsy Report (AR).
He was caught lying in a few places, including his morning after phone
call to find out about the tracheotomy, which a number of witnesses showed
was wrong.
Yep, your sort of witnesses.Post by John McAdams
But when he won't admit that he goofed about the location of the
wound, he's a fearless truth teller.
Poor ole Humes was put on the spot when he was called and given hisBut when he won't admit that he goofed about the location of the
wound, he's a fearless truth teller.
instructions as to what to do with the body, and his Autopsy Report (AR).
He was caught lying in a few places, including his morning after phone
call to find out about the tracheotomy, which a number of witnesses showed
was wrong.
Audrey Bell, and Radiologist Dr. Ebersole. I saw them as upstanding folks
of the medical community. Where did you get the idea there was something
wrong with them, as your comment suggests? If they are invalid witnesses,
I need to know so I don't go around using them all the time.
they use him as an absolute authority on the red spot in the cowlick
area.
Post by mainframetech
That's because you have only been reading buff stuff.Post by John McAdams
It was clear to all the medical panels that the "red spot" was an
entry defect for a bullet. We are talking about the Chark,
Rockefeller and HSCA panels.
Interesting. I didn't see that conclusion anywhere in my reading.Post by mainframetech
But the little 'red spot' can be seen by anyone in one of the autopsy
photos, and it's clear that it's not a bullet hole in the BOH.
That's absolutely stunning chutzpah!But the little 'red spot' can be seen by anyone in one of the autopsy
photos, and it's clear that it's not a bullet hole in the BOH.
It was clear to all the medical panels that the "red spot" was an
entry defect for a bullet. We are talking about the Chark,
Rockefeller and HSCA panels.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82#relPageId=113
magnification. And the ability to use "stereoscopic visualization" to see
3-dimensional views of the 2 color transparencies.
Chris, do you have those capabilities on your computer?
statements from those who were present at the events in the case. Sad
that you have put most of that down in favor of the WCR and it's theories.
bigdog
2018-07-29 01:20:46 UTC
Post by mainframetech
statements from those who were present at the events in the case. Sad
that you have put most of that down in favor of the WCR and it's theories.
You use selective evidence and the evidence you select is the leastPost by bigdog
WRONG again! I see evidence mainly from sworn testimony, documents andPost by n***@gmail.com
magnification. And the ability to use "stereoscopic visualization" to see
3-dimensional views of the 2 color transparencies.
Chris, do you have those capabilities on your computer?
Chris doesn't need that. He sees what he wants to see.Post by John McAdams
they use him as an absolute authority on the red spot in the cowlick
area.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82#relPageId=113
The HSCA medical panel had the ability to look at the photos with 10XPost by mainframetech
Audrey Bell, and Radiologist Dr. Ebersole. I saw them as upstanding folks
of the medical community. Where did you get the idea there was something
wrong with them, as your comment suggests? If they are invalid witnesses,
I need to know so I don't go around using them all the time.
You missed my point. You call Humes a liar when it's convenient, butPost by John McAdams
Odd you would say that. My witnesses were Dr. Livingston, NursePost by mainframetech
instructions as to what to do with the body, and his Autopsy Report (AR).
He was caught lying in a few places, including his morning after phone
call to find out about the tracheotomy, which a number of witnesses showed
was wrong.
Yep, your sort of witnesses.Post by John McAdams
But when he won't admit that he goofed about the location of the
wound, he's a fearless truth teller.
Poor ole Humes was put on the spot when he was called and given hisBut when he won't admit that he goofed about the location of the
wound, he's a fearless truth teller.
instructions as to what to do with the body, and his Autopsy Report (AR).
He was caught lying in a few places, including his morning after phone
call to find out about the tracheotomy, which a number of witnesses showed
was wrong.
Audrey Bell, and Radiologist Dr. Ebersole. I saw them as upstanding folks
of the medical community. Where did you get the idea there was something
wrong with them, as your comment suggests? If they are invalid witnesses,
I need to know so I don't go around using them all the time.
they use him as an absolute authority on the red spot in the cowlick
area.
Post by mainframetech
That's because you have only been reading buff stuff.Post by John McAdams
It was clear to all the medical panels that the "red spot" was an
entry defect for a bullet. We are talking about the Chark,
Rockefeller and HSCA panels.
Interesting. I didn't see that conclusion anywhere in my reading.Post by mainframetech
But the little 'red spot' can be seen by anyone in one of the autopsy
photos, and it's clear that it's not a bullet hole in the BOH.
That's absolutely stunning chutzpah!But the little 'red spot' can be seen by anyone in one of the autopsy
photos, and it's clear that it's not a bullet hole in the BOH.
It was clear to all the medical panels that the "red spot" was an
entry defect for a bullet. We are talking about the Chark,
Rockefeller and HSCA panels.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82#relPageId=113
magnification. And the ability to use "stereoscopic visualization" to see
3-dimensional views of the 2 color transparencies.
Chris, do you have those capabilities on your computer?
statements from those who were present at the events in the case. Sad
that you have put most of that down in favor of the WCR and it's theories.
credible such as your placing more faith in what the techies said they saw
than what the pathologists said they saw and what the review panels said
they saw in the photos and x-rays. Any evidence which doesn't fit your
beliefs you invent a ridiculous excuse to dismiss such as your baseless
claim that the pathologists were ordered to lie in their AR. Whatever
needed to have happened for your beliefs to be plausible must have
happened in your twisted way of looking at the evidence.
mainframetech
2018-07-27 00:54:20 UTC
Post by n***@gmail.com
magnification. And the ability to use "stereoscopic visualization" to see
3-dimensional views of the 2 color transparencies.
Chris, do you have those capabilities on your computer?
Mark
No need. The quality of the 'leaked' autopsy photos is plenty goodPost by John McAdams
they use him as an absolute authority on the red spot in the cowlick
area.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82#relPageId=113
The HSCA medical panel had the ability to look at the photos with 10XPost by mainframetech
Audrey Bell, and Radiologist Dr. Ebersole. I saw them as upstanding folks
of the medical community. Where did you get the idea there was something
wrong with them, as your comment suggests? If they are invalid witnesses,
I need to know so I don't go around using them all the time.
You missed my point. You call Humes a liar when it's convenient, butPost by John McAdams
Odd you would say that. My witnesses were Dr. Livingston, NursePost by mainframetech
instructions as to what to do with the body, and his Autopsy Report (AR).
He was caught lying in a few places, including his morning after phone
call to find out about the tracheotomy, which a number of witnesses showed
was wrong.
Yep, your sort of witnesses.Post by John McAdams
But when he won't admit that he goofed about the location of the
wound, he's a fearless truth teller.
Poor ole Humes was put on the spot when he was called and given hisBut when he won't admit that he goofed about the location of the
wound, he's a fearless truth teller.
instructions as to what to do with the body, and his Autopsy Report (AR).
He was caught lying in a few places, including his morning after phone
call to find out about the tracheotomy, which a number of witnesses showed
was wrong.
Audrey Bell, and Radiologist Dr. Ebersole. I saw them as upstanding folks
of the medical community. Where did you get the idea there was something
wrong with them, as your comment suggests? If they are invalid witnesses,
I need to know so I don't go around using them all the time.
they use him as an absolute authority on the red spot in the cowlick
area.
Post by mainframetech
That's because you have only been reading buff stuff.Post by John McAdams
It was clear to all the medical panels that the "red spot" was an
entry defect for a bullet. We are talking about the Chark,
Rockefeller and HSCA panels.
Interesting. I didn't see that conclusion anywhere in my reading.Post by mainframetech
But the little 'red spot' can be seen by anyone in one of the autopsy
photos, and it's clear that it's not a bullet hole in the BOH.
That's absolutely stunning chutzpah!But the little 'red spot' can be seen by anyone in one of the autopsy
photos, and it's clear that it's not a bullet hole in the BOH.
It was clear to all the medical panels that the "red spot" was an
entry defect for a bullet. We are talking about the Chark,
Rockefeller and HSCA panels.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82#relPageId=113
magnification. And the ability to use "stereoscopic visualization" to see
3-dimensional views of the 2 color transparencies.
Chris, do you have those capabilities on your computer?
Mark
for seeing any bullet hole in the BOH, or the bullet hole in the forehead
area. And most people have the ability to recognize a hole in something.
But tell me, why do you ignore the BOH autopsy photo that shows NO
bullet hole where the pathologists said there was one? The quality is good
enough. and why do you ignore the HSCA's trickery in using the Dox
Drawing to show the bullet hole in the BOH, instead of the photo that it
copied? After all, when you look at the 2 of them, you see immediately
that the bullet hole was put into the drawing, but doesn't exist in the
photo!
Chris
mainframetech
2018-07-26 02:15:24 UTC
Post by John McAdams
they use him as an absolute authority on the red spot in the cowlick
area.
Ah! I call him a liar when he gets caught lying. As with most liars,Post by mainframetech
Audrey Bell, and Radiologist Dr. Ebersole. I saw them as upstanding folks
of the medical community. Where did you get the idea there was something
wrong with them, as your comment suggests? If they are invalid witnesses,
I need to know so I don't go around using them all the time.
You missed my point. You call Humes a liar when it's convenient, butPost by John McAdams
Odd you would say that. My witnesses were Dr. Livingston, NursePost by mainframetech
instructions as to what to do with the body, and his Autopsy Report (AR).
He was caught lying in a few places, including his morning after phone
call to find out about the tracheotomy, which a number of witnesses showed
was wrong.
Yep, your sort of witnesses.Post by John McAdams
But when he won't admit that he goofed about the location of the
wound, he's a fearless truth teller.
Poor ole Humes was put on the spot when he was called and given hisBut when he won't admit that he goofed about the location of the
wound, he's a fearless truth teller.
instructions as to what to do with the body, and his Autopsy Report (AR).
He was caught lying in a few places, including his morning after phone
call to find out about the tracheotomy, which a number of witnesses showed
was wrong.
Audrey Bell, and Radiologist Dr. Ebersole. I saw them as upstanding folks
of the medical community. Where did you get the idea there was something
wrong with them, as your comment suggests? If they are invalid witnesses,
I need to know so I don't go around using them all the time.
they use him as an absolute authority on the red spot in the cowlick
area.
they sometimes tell the truth. It would be silly of me to assume that one
lie says everything said was a lie. Of course, there's the Autopsy
Report, but he as ordered to lie in that one as has been shown.
Post by John McAdams
Actually I read a lot of the ARRB stuff. The CT stuff is only when thePost by mainframetech
That's because you have only been reading buff stuff.Post by John McAdams
It was clear to all the medical panels that the "red spot" was an
entry defect for a bullet. We are talking about the Chark,
Rockefeller and HSCA panels.
Interesting. I didn't see that conclusion anywhere in my reading.Post by mainframetech
But the little 'red spot' can be seen by anyone in one of the autopsy
photos, and it's clear that it's not a bullet hole in the BOH.
That's absolutely stunning chutzpah!But the little 'red spot' can be seen by anyone in one of the autopsy
photos, and it's clear that it's not a bullet hole in the BOH.
It was clear to all the medical panels that the "red spot" was an
entry defect for a bullet. We are talking about the Chark,
Rockefeller and HSCA panels.
LNs don't have the nerve to put out that stuff. After all, they wouldn't
want to support the opposition.
Oh my god! You need to read that passage and the attendant photo on
the next page that goes with it. To describe the bullet wound to the BOH,
they said to see Figure 13, which was the DRAWING by Ida Dox, which has
the bullet hole drawn right into it! They never referred to the photo
(which had no bullet hole), and to help, they put the Dox DRAWING on the
page right after as figure 13!!!! The description is of the DRAWING!
What a scam! Even the HSCA is in on it. It's not the first time they did
cover up on this case.
And worse, if they are using the DRAWING to prove things, then their
whole story comes into conflict, like with the over 39 eyewitnesses that
saw the 'large le' in the BOH which is completely missing from the
DRAWING!
Thank you John, for that little piece of proof to put in my file.
Post by John McAdams
I wasn't making a statement, but asking a question. Something is fishyPost by mainframetech
That's why I quoted Humes who was there and saw the BOH and said first,
that he didn't know what the 'red spot' was, and second, that he had seen
the underlying skull and there was no bullet hole there to match the
surface scalp. Was he lying again? I think not. He had to tell the
"Dr. Petty then continued, "Also on this same photograph is a
ruler and approximately 2 centimeters or so down the ruler and
just to the right of it is a second apparent area of defect, and this
has been enlarged and is shown to you in an enlargement, I guess
No. 16, which shows you right opposite the 1 centimeter mark on
the ruler this defect or what appears to be a defect."
Thereafter, skipping a small portion and going to the very next
page, 40, you replied, "I don't know what that is. No. 1, I can
assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there
was no defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I
don't know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I
just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0907_7_Humes.pdf
What I can see is Humes saying that he saw NO bullet hole under the
scalp where the red spot was, and that the 'red spot' was nothing of any
importance. Stereoscopic photos of the 'red spot' will indeed show a 'red
spot', but not a hole. I saw 'on the internet' what Humes said he saw.
Now do we have phony photos here, or do we have false statements from
panels?
So the panels were lying?That's why I quoted Humes who was there and saw the BOH and said first,
that he didn't know what the 'red spot' was, and second, that he had seen
the underlying skull and there was no bullet hole there to match the
surface scalp. Was he lying again? I think not. He had to tell the
"Dr. Petty then continued, "Also on this same photograph is a
ruler and approximately 2 centimeters or so down the ruler and
just to the right of it is a second apparent area of defect, and this
has been enlarged and is shown to you in an enlargement, I guess
No. 16, which shows you right opposite the 1 centimeter mark on
the ruler this defect or what appears to be a defect."
Thereafter, skipping a small portion and going to the very next
page, 40, you replied, "I don't know what that is. No. 1, I can
assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there
was no defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I
don't know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I
just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0907_7_Humes.pdf
What I can see is Humes saying that he saw NO bullet hole under the
scalp where the red spot was, and that the 'red spot' was nothing of any
importance. Stereoscopic photos of the 'red spot' will indeed show a 'red
spot', but not a hole. I saw 'on the internet' what Humes said he saw.
Now do we have phony photos here, or do we have false statements from
panels?
with the 'leaked' autopsy photos. Are those the ones that were shown to
the medical panels? If so, we've got a major scandal here. If they were
given these DRAWINGS, then they were hoodwinked into believing that there
was a shot that hit the BOH, when no such thing happened.
I believe a liar will indeed tell the truth at times. It all depends
on what their goals are. To back up his Autopsy Report (AR) he would need
a shot in the BOH. But he probably knew he couldn't get away with saying
the 'red spot' was a bullet hole, so he told the truth from his
examination at the AR.
Post by John McAdams
and x-rays.
Well, I looked where you told me to, and found that the HSCA wasPost by mainframetech
I will say that if you want to see a bullet hole, you just have to
look at the Ida Dox drawing of the same photo and she was obviously told
to put in a bullet hole, which shows nicely in her drawing. It just isn't
in the photo she copied. I hope they didn't show her drawing as if it was
the photo.
Read the link I posted above. The FPP looked at the original photos,I will say that if you want to see a bullet hole, you just have to
look at the Ida Dox drawing of the same photo and she was obviously told
to put in a bullet hole, which shows nicely in her drawing. It just isn't
in the photo she copied. I hope they didn't show her drawing as if it was
the photo.
and x-rays.
telling the congress and the public that the drawing described the BOH
wound, when it really didn't and the wound was drawn in! If the panels
looked at the REAL photos, they would see the 'large hole' in the BOH seen
by over 39 eyewitnesses. Since they didn't report on anything like that,
they had to be shown something that was NOT the original wounds or even
the real photos.
Chris
bigdog
2018-07-27 00:48:09 UTC
Post by mainframetech
they sometimes tell the truth. It would be silly of me to assume that one
lie says everything said was a lie. Of course, there's the Autopsy
Report, but he as ordered to lie in that one as has been shown.
LNs don't have the nerve to put out that stuff. After all, they wouldn't
want to support the opposition.
Oh my god! You need to read that passage and the attendant photo on
the next page that goes with it. To describe the bullet wound to the BOH,
they said to see Figure 13, which was the DRAWING by Ida Dox, which has
the bullet hole drawn right into it! They never referred to the photo
(which had no bullet hole), and to help, they put the Dox DRAWING on the
page right after as figure 13!!!! The description is of the DRAWING!
What a scam! Even the HSCA is in on it. It's not the first time they did
cover up on this case.
And worse, if they are using the DRAWING to prove things, then their
whole story comes into conflict, like with the over 39 eyewitnesses that
saw the 'large le' in the BOH which is completely missing from the
DRAWING!
Thank you John, for that little piece of proof to put in my file.
with the 'leaked' autopsy photos. Are those the ones that were shown to
the medical panels? If so, we've got a major scandal here. If they were
given these DRAWINGS, then they were hoodwinked into believing that there
was a shot that hit the BOH, when no such thing happened.
I believe a liar will indeed tell the truth at times. It all depends
on what their goals are. To back up his Autopsy Report (AR) he would need
a shot in the BOH. But he probably knew he couldn't get away with saying
the 'red spot' was a bullet hole, so he told the truth from his
examination at the AR.
telling the congress and the public that the drawing described the BOH
wound, when it really didn't and the wound was drawn in! If the panels
looked at the REAL photos, they would see the 'large hole' in the BOH seen
by over 39 eyewitnesses. Since they didn't report on anything like that,
they had to be shown something that was NOT the original wounds or even
the real photos.
The large hole in the BOH didn't show up in the Z-film nor in the Nix andPost by John McAdams
they use him as an absolute authority on the red spot in the cowlick
area.
Ah! I call him a liar when he gets caught lying. As with most liars,Post by mainframetech
Audrey Bell, and Radiologist Dr. Ebersole. I saw them as upstanding folks
of the medical community. Where did you get the idea there was something
wrong with them, as your comment suggests? If they are invalid witnesses,
I need to know so I don't go around using them all the time.
You missed my point. You call Humes a liar when it's convenient, butPost by John McAdams
Odd you would say that. My witnesses were Dr. Livingston, NursePost by mainframetech
instructions as to what to do with the body, and his Autopsy Report (AR).
He was caught lying in a few places, including his morning after phone
call to find out about the tracheotomy, which a number of witnesses showed
was wrong.
Yep, your sort of witnesses.Post by John McAdams
But when he won't admit that he goofed about the location of the
wound, he's a fearless truth teller.
Poor ole Humes was put on the spot when he was called and given hisBut when he won't admit that he goofed about the location of the
wound, he's a fearless truth teller.
instructions as to what to do with the body, and his Autopsy Report (AR).
He was caught lying in a few places, including his morning after phone
call to find out about the tracheotomy, which a number of witnesses showed
was wrong.
Audrey Bell, and Radiologist Dr. Ebersole. I saw them as upstanding folks
of the medical community. Where did you get the idea there was something
wrong with them, as your comment suggests? If they are invalid witnesses,
I need to know so I don't go around using them all the time.
they use him as an absolute authority on the red spot in the cowlick
area.
they sometimes tell the truth. It would be silly of me to assume that one
lie says everything said was a lie. Of course, there's the Autopsy
Report, but he as ordered to lie in that one as has been shown.
Post by John McAdams
Actually I read a lot of the ARRB stuff. The CT stuff is only when thePost by mainframetech
That's because you have only been reading buff stuff.Post by John McAdams
It was clear to all the medical panels that the "red spot" was an
entry defect for a bullet. We are talking about the Chark,
Rockefeller and HSCA panels.
Interesting. I didn't see that conclusion anywhere in my reading.Post by mainframetech
But the little 'red spot' can be seen by anyone in one of the autopsy
photos, and it's clear that it's not a bullet hole in the BOH.
That's absolutely stunning chutzpah!But the little 'red spot' can be seen by anyone in one of the autopsy
photos, and it's clear that it's not a bullet hole in the BOH.
It was clear to all the medical panels that the "red spot" was an
entry defect for a bullet. We are talking about the Chark,
Rockefeller and HSCA panels.
LNs don't have the nerve to put out that stuff. After all, they wouldn't
want to support the opposition.
Oh my god! You need to read that passage and the attendant photo on
the next page that goes with it. To describe the bullet wound to the BOH,
they said to see Figure 13, which was the DRAWING by Ida Dox, which has
the bullet hole drawn right into it! They never referred to the photo
(which had no bullet hole), and to help, they put the Dox DRAWING on the
page right after as figure 13!!!! The description is of the DRAWING!
What a scam! Even the HSCA is in on it. It's not the first time they did
cover up on this case.
And worse, if they are using the DRAWING to prove things, then their
whole story comes into conflict, like with the over 39 eyewitnesses that
saw the 'large le' in the BOH which is completely missing from the
DRAWING!
Thank you John, for that little piece of proof to put in my file.
Post by John McAdams
I wasn't making a statement, but asking a question. Something is fishyPost by mainframetech
That's why I quoted Humes who was there and saw the BOH and said first,
that he didn't know what the 'red spot' was, and second, that he had seen
the underlying skull and there was no bullet hole there to match the
surface scalp. Was he lying again? I think not. He had to tell the
"Dr. Petty then continued, "Also on this same photograph is a
ruler and approximately 2 centimeters or so down the ruler and
just to the right of it is a second apparent area of defect, and this
has been enlarged and is shown to you in an enlargement, I guess
No. 16, which shows you right opposite the 1 centimeter mark on
the ruler this defect or what appears to be a defect."
Thereafter, skipping a small portion and going to the very next
page, 40, you replied, "I don't know what that is. No. 1, I can
assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there
was no defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I
don't know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I
just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0907_7_Humes.pdf
What I can see is Humes saying that he saw NO bullet hole under the
scalp where the red spot was, and that the 'red spot' was nothing of any
importance. Stereoscopic photos of the 'red spot' will indeed show a 'red
spot', but not a hole. I saw 'on the internet' what Humes said he saw.
Now do we have phony photos here, or do we have false statements from
panels?
So the panels were lying?That's why I quoted Humes who was there and saw the BOH and said first,
that he didn't know what the 'red spot' was, and second, that he had seen
the underlying skull and there was no bullet hole there to match the
surface scalp. Was he lying again? I think not. He had to tell the
"Dr. Petty then continued, "Also on this same photograph is a
ruler and approximately 2 centimeters or so down the ruler and
just to the right of it is a second apparent area of defect, and this
has been enlarged and is shown to you in an enlargement, I guess
No. 16, which shows you right opposite the 1 centimeter mark on
the ruler this defect or what appears to be a defect."
Thereafter, skipping a small portion and going to the very next
page, 40, you replied, "I don't know what that is. No. 1, I can
assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there
was no defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I
don't know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I
just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0907_7_Humes.pdf
What I can see is Humes saying that he saw NO bullet hole under the
scalp where the red spot was, and that the 'red spot' was nothing of any
importance. Stereoscopic photos of the 'red spot' will indeed show a 'red
spot', but not a hole. I saw 'on the internet' what Humes said he saw.
Now do we have phony photos here, or do we have false statements from
panels?
with the 'leaked' autopsy photos. Are those the ones that were shown to
the medical panels? If so, we've got a major scandal here. If they were
given these DRAWINGS, then they were hoodwinked into believing that there
was a shot that hit the BOH, when no such thing happened.
I believe a liar will indeed tell the truth at times. It all depends
on what their goals are. To back up his Autopsy Report (AR) he would need
a shot in the BOH. But he probably knew he couldn't get away with saying
the 'red spot' was a bullet hole, so he told the truth from his
examination at the AR.
Post by John McAdams
and x-rays.
Well, I looked where you told me to, and found that the HSCA wasPost by mainframetech
I will say that if you want to see a bullet hole, you just have to
look at the Ida Dox drawing of the same photo and she was obviously told
to put in a bullet hole, which shows nicely in her drawing. It just isn't
in the photo she copied. I hope they didn't show her drawing as if it was
the photo.
Read the link I posted above. The FPP looked at the original photos,I will say that if you want to see a bullet hole, you just have to
look at the Ida Dox drawing of the same photo and she was obviously told
to put in a bullet hole, which shows nicely in her drawing. It just isn't
in the photo she copied. I hope they didn't show her drawing as if it was
the photo.
and x-rays.
telling the congress and the public that the drawing described the BOH
wound, when it really didn't and the wound was drawn in! If the panels
looked at the REAL photos, they would see the 'large hole' in the BOH seen
by over 39 eyewitnesses. Since they didn't report on anything like that,
they had to be shown something that was NOT the original wounds or even
the real photos.
Muchmore films. Zarpuder and Bill Newman were two of the closest observers
to JFK when the head shot struck and they both described the right side of
his head exploding, not the BOH. Both gave their accounts on live TV
before the Z-film was ever developed so their impressions could not have
been influenced by what the Z-film later showed.
mainframetech
2018-07-28 04:09:59 UTC
Post by bigdog
Muchmore films. Zarpuder and Bill Newman were two of the closest observers
to JFK when the head shot struck and they both described the right side of
his head exploding, not the BOH. Both gave their accounts on live TV
before the Z-film was ever developed so their impressions could not have
been influenced by what the Z-film later showed.
Clint Hill was closer than those 2, and his testimony went like this:Post by mainframetech
they sometimes tell the truth. It would be silly of me to assume that one
lie says everything said was a lie. Of course, there's the Autopsy
Report, but he as ordered to lie in that one as has been shown.
LNs don't have the nerve to put out that stuff. After all, they wouldn't
want to support the opposition.
Oh my god! You need to read that passage and the attendant photo on
the next page that goes with it. To describe the bullet wound to the BOH,
they said to see Figure 13, which was the DRAWING by Ida Dox, which has
the bullet hole drawn right into it! They never referred to the photo
(which had no bullet hole), and to help, they put the Dox DRAWING on the
page right after as figure 13!!!! The description is of the DRAWING!
What a scam! Even the HSCA is in on it. It's not the first time they did
cover up on this case.
And worse, if they are using the DRAWING to prove things, then their
whole story comes into conflict, like with the over 39 eyewitnesses that
saw the 'large le' in the BOH which is completely missing from the
DRAWING!
Thank you John, for that little piece of proof to put in my file.
with the 'leaked' autopsy photos. Are those the ones that were shown to
the medical panels? If so, we've got a major scandal here. If they were
given these DRAWINGS, then they were hoodwinked into believing that there
was a shot that hit the BOH, when no such thing happened.
I believe a liar will indeed tell the truth at times. It all depends
on what their goals are. To back up his Autopsy Report (AR) he would need
a shot in the BOH. But he probably knew he couldn't get away with saying
the 'red spot' was a bullet hole, so he told the truth from his
examination at the AR.
telling the congress and the public that the drawing described the BOH
wound, when it really didn't and the wound was drawn in! If the panels
looked at the REAL photos, they would see the 'large hole' in the BOH seen
by over 39 eyewitnesses. Since they didn't report on anything like that,
they had to be shown something that was NOT the original wounds or even
the real photos.
The large hole in the BOH didn't show up in the Z-film nor in the Nix andPost by John McAdams
they use him as an absolute authority on the red spot in the cowlick
area.
Ah! I call him a liar when he gets caught lying. As with most liars,Post by mainframetech
Audrey Bell, and Radiologist Dr. Ebersole. I saw them as upstanding folks
of the medical community. Where did you get the idea there was something
wrong with them, as your comment suggests? If they are invalid witnesses,
I need to know so I don't go around using them all the time.
You missed my point. You call Humes a liar when it's convenient, butPost by John McAdams
Odd you would say that. My witnesses were Dr. Livingston, NursePost by mainframetech
instructions as to what to do with the body, and his Autopsy Report (AR).
He was caught lying in a few places, including his morning after phone
call to find out about the tracheotomy, which a number of witnesses showed
was wrong.
Yep, your sort of witnesses.Post by John McAdams
But when he won't admit that he goofed about the location of the
wound, he's a fearless truth teller.
Poor ole Humes was put on the spot when he was called and given hisBut when he won't admit that he goofed about the location of the
wound, he's a fearless truth teller.
instructions as to what to do with the body, and his Autopsy Report (AR).
He was caught lying in a few places, including his morning after phone
call to find out about the tracheotomy, which a number of witnesses showed
was wrong.
Audrey Bell, and Radiologist Dr. Ebersole. I saw them as upstanding folks
of the medical community. Where did you get the idea there was something
wrong with them, as your comment suggests? If they are invalid witnesses,
I need to know so I don't go around using them all the time.
they use him as an absolute authority on the red spot in the cowlick
area.
they sometimes tell the truth. It would be silly of me to assume that one
lie says everything said was a lie. Of course, there's the Autopsy
Report, but he as ordered to lie in that one as has been shown.
Post by John McAdams
Actually I read a lot of the ARRB stuff. The CT stuff is only when thePost by mainframetech
That's because you have only been reading buff stuff.Post by John McAdams
It was clear to all the medical panels that the "red spot" was an
entry defect for a bullet. We are talking about the Chark,
Rockefeller and HSCA panels.
Interesting. I didn't see that conclusion anywhere in my reading.Post by mainframetech
But the little 'red spot' can be seen by anyone in one of the autopsy
photos, and it's clear that it's not a bullet hole in the BOH.
That's absolutely stunning chutzpah!But the little 'red spot' can be seen by anyone in one of the autopsy
photos, and it's clear that it's not a bullet hole in the BOH.
It was clear to all the medical panels that the "red spot" was an
entry defect for a bullet. We are talking about the Chark,
Rockefeller and HSCA panels.
LNs don't have the nerve to put out that stuff. After all, they wouldn't
want to support the opposition.
Oh my god! You need to read that passage and the attendant photo on
the next page that goes with it. To describe the bullet wound to the BOH,
they said to see Figure 13, which was the DRAWING by Ida Dox, which has
the bullet hole drawn right into it! They never referred to the photo
(which had no bullet hole), and to help, they put the Dox DRAWING on the
page right after as figure 13!!!! The description is of the DRAWING!
What a scam! Even the HSCA is in on it. It's not the first time they did
cover up on this case.
And worse, if they are using the DRAWING to prove things, then their
whole story comes into conflict, like with the over 39 eyewitnesses that
saw the 'large le' in the BOH which is completely missing from the
DRAWING!
Thank you John, for that little piece of proof to put in my file.
Post by John McAdams
I wasn't making a statement, but asking a question. Something is fishyPost by mainframetech
That's why I quoted Humes who was there and saw the BOH and said first,
that he didn't know what the 'red spot' was, and second, that he had seen
the underlying skull and there was no bullet hole there to match the
surface scalp. Was he lying again? I think not. He had to tell the
"Dr. Petty then continued, "Also on this same photograph is a
ruler and approximately 2 centimeters or so down the ruler and
just to the right of it is a second apparent area of defect, and this
has been enlarged and is shown to you in an enlargement, I guess
No. 16, which shows you right opposite the 1 centimeter mark on
the ruler this defect or what appears to be a defect."
Thereafter, skipping a small portion and going to the very next
page, 40, you replied, "I don't know what that is. No. 1, I can
assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there
was no defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I
don't know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I
just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0907_7_Humes.pdf
What I can see is Humes saying that he saw NO bullet hole under the
scalp where the red spot was, and that the 'red spot' was nothing of any
importance. Stereoscopic photos of the 'red spot' will indeed show a 'red
spot', but not a hole. I saw 'on the internet' what Humes said he saw.
Now do we have phony photos here, or do we have false statements from
panels?
So the panels were lying?That's why I quoted Humes who was there and saw the BOH and said first,
that he didn't know what the 'red spot' was, and second, that he had seen
the underlying skull and there was no bullet hole there to match the
surface scalp. Was he lying again? I think not. He had to tell the
"Dr. Petty then continued, "Also on this same photograph is a
ruler and approximately 2 centimeters or so down the ruler and
just to the right of it is a second apparent area of defect, and this
has been enlarged and is shown to you in an enlargement, I guess
No. 16, which shows you right opposite the 1 centimeter mark on
the ruler this defect or what appears to be a defect."
Thereafter, skipping a small portion and going to the very next
page, 40, you replied, "I don't know what that is. No. 1, I can
assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there
was no defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I
don't know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I
just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0907_7_Humes.pdf
What I can see is Humes saying that he saw NO bullet hole under the
scalp where the red spot was, and that the 'red spot' was nothing of any
importance. Stereoscopic photos of the 'red spot' will indeed show a 'red
spot', but not a hole. I saw 'on the internet' what Humes said he saw.
Now do we have phony photos here, or do we have false statements from
panels?
with the 'leaked' autopsy photos. Are those the ones that were shown to
the medical panels? If so, we've got a major scandal here. If they were
given these DRAWINGS, then they were hoodwinked into believing that there
was a shot that hit the BOH, when no such thing happened.
I believe a liar will indeed tell the truth at times. It all depends
on what their goals are. To back up his Autopsy Report (AR) he would need
a shot in the BOH. But he probably knew he couldn't get away with saying
the 'red spot' was a bullet hole, so he told the truth from his
examination at the AR.
Post by John McAdams
and x-rays.
Well, I looked where you told me to, and found that the HSCA wasPost by mainframetech
I will say that if you want to see a bullet hole, you just have to
look at the Ida Dox drawing of the same photo and she was obviously told
to put in a bullet hole, which shows nicely in her drawing. It just isn't
in the photo she copied. I hope they didn't show her drawing as if it was
the photo.
Read the link I posted above. The FPP looked at the original photos,I will say that if you want to see a bullet hole, you just have to
look at the Ida Dox drawing of the same photo and she was obviously told
to put in a bullet hole, which shows nicely in her drawing. It just isn't
in the photo she copied. I hope they didn't show her drawing as if it was
the photo.
and x-rays.
telling the congress and the public that the drawing described the BOH
wound, when it really didn't and the wound was drawn in! If the panels
looked at the REAL photos, they would see the 'large hole' in the BOH seen
by over 39 eyewitnesses. Since they didn't report on anything like that,
they had to be shown something that was NOT the original wounds or even
the real photos.
Muchmore films. Zarpuder and Bill Newman were two of the closest observers
to JFK when the head shot struck and they both described the right side of
his head exploding, not the BOH. Both gave their accounts on live TV
before the Z-film was ever developed so their impressions could not have
been influenced by what the Z-film later showed.
"Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy's condition on arrival at the hospital?
Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in
the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits
of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was
completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell
if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping
wound in the right rear portion of the head."
Further, Tom Robinson, the mortician, was present when the body came
into the morgue. He described the BOH by drawing on a form:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
Note that the wound was in the lower BOH and was much larger than the
size of a bullet.
Chris
bigdog
2018-07-29 01:20:12 UTC
Post by mainframetech
Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in
the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits
of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was
completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell
if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping
wound in the right rear portion of the head."
By the time they reached the hospital, Jackie had closed the forward flapsPost by bigdog
Muchmore films. Zarpuder and Bill Newman were two of the closest observers
to JFK when the head shot struck and they both described the right side of
his head exploding, not the BOH. Both gave their accounts on live TV
before the Z-film was ever developed so their impressions could not have
been influenced by what the Z-film later showed.
"Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy's condition on arrival at the hospital?Post by mainframetech
they sometimes tell the truth. It would be silly of me to assume that one
lie says everything said was a lie. Of course, there's the Autopsy
Report, but he as ordered to lie in that one as has been shown.
LNs don't have the nerve to put out that stuff. After all, they wouldn't
want to support the opposition.
Oh my god! You need to read that passage and the attendant photo on
the next page that goes with it. To describe the bullet wound to the BOH,
they said to see Figure 13, which was the DRAWING by Ida Dox, which has
the bullet hole drawn right into it! They never referred to the photo
(which had no bullet hole), and to help, they put the Dox DRAWING on the
page right after as figure 13!!!! The description is of the DRAWING!
What a scam! Even the HSCA is in on it. It's not the first time they did
cover up on this case.
And worse, if they are using the DRAWING to prove things, then their
whole story comes into conflict, like with the over 39 eyewitnesses that
saw the 'large le' in the BOH which is completely missing from the
DRAWING!
Thank you John, for that little piece of proof to put in my file.
with the 'leaked' autopsy photos. Are those the ones that were shown to
the medical panels? If so, we've got a major scandal here. If they were
given these DRAWINGS, then they were hoodwinked into believing that there
was a shot that hit the BOH, when no such thing happened.
I believe a liar will indeed tell the truth at times. It all depends
on what their goals are. To back up his Autopsy Report (AR) he would need
a shot in the BOH. But he probably knew he couldn't get away with saying
the 'red spot' was a bullet hole, so he told the truth from his
examination at the AR.
telling the congress and the public that the drawing described the BOH
wound, when it really didn't and the wound was drawn in! If the panels
looked at the REAL photos, they would see the 'large hole' in the BOH seen
by over 39 eyewitnesses. Since they didn't report on anything like that,
they had to be shown something that was NOT the original wounds or even
the real photos.
The large hole in the BOH didn't show up in the Z-film nor in the Nix andPost by John McAdams
they use him as an absolute authority on the red spot in the cowlick
area.
Ah! I call him a liar when he gets caught lying. As with most liars,Post by mainframetech
Audrey Bell, and Radiologist Dr. Ebersole. I saw them as upstanding folks
of the medical community. Where did you get the idea there was something
wrong with them, as your comment suggests? If they are invalid witnesses,
I need to know so I don't go around using them all the time.
You missed my point. You call Humes a liar when it's convenient, butPost by John McAdams
Odd you would say that. My witnesses were Dr. Livingston, NursePost by mainframetech
instructions as to what to do with the body, and his Autopsy Report (AR).
He was caught lying in a few places, including his morning after phone
call to find out about the tracheotomy, which a number of witnesses showed
was wrong.
Yep, your sort of witnesses.Post by John McAdams
But when he won't admit that he goofed about the location of the
wound, he's a fearless truth teller.
Poor ole Humes was put on the spot when he was called and given hisBut when he won't admit that he goofed about the location of the
wound, he's a fearless truth teller.
instructions as to what to do with the body, and his Autopsy Report (AR).
He was caught lying in a few places, including his morning after phone
call to find out about the tracheotomy, which a number of witnesses showed
was wrong.
Audrey Bell, and Radiologist Dr. Ebersole. I saw them as upstanding folks
of the medical community. Where did you get the idea there was something
wrong with them, as your comment suggests? If they are invalid witnesses,
I need to know so I don't go around using them all the time.
they use him as an absolute authority on the red spot in the cowlick
area.
they sometimes tell the truth. It would be silly of me to assume that one
lie says everything said was a lie. Of course, there's the Autopsy
Report, but he as ordered to lie in that one as has been shown.
Post by John McAdams
Actually I read a lot of the ARRB stuff. The CT stuff is only when thePost by mainframetech
That's because you have only been reading buff stuff.Post by John McAdams
It was clear to all the medical panels that the "red spot" was an
entry defect for a bullet. We are talking about the Chark,
Rockefeller and HSCA panels.
Interesting. I didn't see that conclusion anywhere in my reading.Post by mainframetech
But the little 'red spot' can be seen by anyone in one of the autopsy
photos, and it's clear that it's not a bullet hole in the BOH.
That's absolutely stunning chutzpah!But the little 'red spot' can be seen by anyone in one of the autopsy
photos, and it's clear that it's not a bullet hole in the BOH.
It was clear to all the medical panels that the "red spot" was an
entry defect for a bullet. We are talking about the Chark,
Rockefeller and HSCA panels.
LNs don't have the nerve to put out that stuff. After all, they wouldn't
want to support the opposition.
Oh my god! You need to read that passage and the attendant photo on
the next page that goes with it. To describe the bullet wound to the BOH,
they said to see Figure 13, which was the DRAWING by Ida Dox, which has
the bullet hole drawn right into it! They never referred to the photo
(which had no bullet hole), and to help, they put the Dox DRAWING on the
page right after as figure 13!!!! The description is of the DRAWING!
What a scam! Even the HSCA is in on it. It's not the first time they did
cover up on this case.
And worse, if they are using the DRAWING to prove things, then their
whole story comes into conflict, like with the over 39 eyewitnesses that
saw the 'large le' in the BOH which is completely missing from the
DRAWING!
Thank you John, for that little piece of proof to put in my file.
Post by John McAdams
I wasn't making a statement, but asking a question. Something is fishyPost by mainframetech
That's why I quoted Humes who was there and saw the BOH and said first,
that he didn't know what the 'red spot' was, and second, that he had seen
the underlying skull and there was no bullet hole there to match the
surface scalp. Was he lying again? I think not. He had to tell the
"Dr. Petty then continued, "Also on this same photograph is a
ruler and approximately 2 centimeters or so down the ruler and
just to the right of it is a second apparent area of defect, and this
has been enlarged and is shown to you in an enlargement, I guess
No. 16, which shows you right opposite the 1 centimeter mark on
the ruler this defect or what appears to be a defect."
Thereafter, skipping a small portion and going to the very next
page, 40, you replied, "I don't know what that is. No. 1, I can
assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there
was no defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I
don't know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I
just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0907_7_Humes.pdf
What I can see is Humes saying that he saw NO bullet hole under the
scalp where the red spot was, and that the 'red spot' was nothing of any
importance. Stereoscopic photos of the 'red spot' will indeed show a 'red
spot', but not a hole. I saw 'on the internet' what Humes said he saw.
Now do we have phony photos here, or do we have false statements from
panels?
So the panels were lying?That's why I quoted Humes who was there and saw the BOH and said first,
that he didn't know what the 'red spot' was, and second, that he had seen
the underlying skull and there was no bullet hole there to match the
surface scalp. Was he lying again? I think not. He had to tell the
"Dr. Petty then continued, "Also on this same photograph is a
ruler and approximately 2 centimeters or so down the ruler and
just to the right of it is a second apparent area of defect, and this
has been enlarged and is shown to you in an enlargement, I guess
No. 16, which shows you right opposite the 1 centimeter mark on
the ruler this defect or what appears to be a defect."
Thereafter, skipping a small portion and going to the very next
page, 40, you replied, "I don't know what that is. No. 1, I can
assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there
was no defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I
don't know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I
just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0907_7_Humes.pdf
What I can see is Humes saying that he saw NO bullet hole under the
scalp where the red spot was, and that the 'red spot' was nothing of any
importance. Stereoscopic photos of the 'red spot' will indeed show a 'red
spot', but not a hole. I saw 'on the internet' what Humes said he saw.
Now do we have phony photos here, or do we have false statements from
panels?
with the 'leaked' autopsy photos. Are those the ones that were shown to
the medical panels? If so, we've got a major scandal here. If they were
given these DRAWINGS, then they were hoodwinked into believing that there
was a shot that hit the BOH, when no such thing happened.
I believe a liar will indeed tell the truth at times. It all depends
on what their goals are. To back up his Autopsy Report (AR) he would need
a shot in the BOH. But he probably knew he couldn't get away with saying
the 'red spot' was a bullet hole, so he told the truth from his
examination at the AR.
Post by John McAdams
and x-rays.
Well, I looked where you told me to, and found that the HSCA wasPost by mainframetech
I will say that if you want to see a bullet hole, you just have to
look at the Ida Dox drawing of the same photo and she was obviously told
to put in a bullet hole, which shows nicely in her drawing. It just isn't
in the photo she copied. I hope they didn't show her drawing as if it was
the photo.
Read the link I posted above. The FPP looked at the original photos,I will say that if you want to see a bullet hole, you just have to
look at the Ida Dox drawing of the same photo and she was obviously told
to put in a bullet hole, which shows nicely in her drawing. It just isn't
in the photo she copied. I hope they didn't show her drawing as if it was
the photo.
and x-rays.
telling the congress and the public that the drawing described the BOH
wound, when it really didn't and the wound was drawn in! If the panels
looked at the REAL photos, they would see the 'large hole' in the BOH seen
by over 39 eyewitnesses. Since they didn't report on anything like that,
they had to be shown something that was NOT the original wounds or even
the real photos.
Muchmore films. Zarpuder and Bill Newman were two of the closest observers
to JFK when the head shot struck and they both described the right side of
his head exploding, not the BOH. Both gave their accounts on live TV
before the Z-film was ever developed so their impressions could not have
been influenced by what the Z-film later showed.
Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in
the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits
of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was
completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell
if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping
wound in the right rear portion of the head."
leaving only the rear portion of the defect exposed where the bone
fragment had completely detached.
Post by mainframetech
Further, Tom Robinson, the mortician, was present when the body came
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
Note that the wound was in the lower BOH and was much larger than the
size of a bullet.
Why would you put more faith in a drawing than you do a photograph? OfFurther, Tom Robinson, the mortician, was present when the body came
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
Note that the wound was in the lower BOH and was much larger than the
size of a bullet.
course you do that selectively because you reject the Ida Dox drawing even
though that one closely matches the photo.
mainframetech
2018-07-30 01:54:28 UTC
Post by bigdog
leaving only the rear portion of the defect exposed where the bone
fragment had completely detached.
course you do that selectively because you reject the Ida Dox drawing even
though that one closely matches the photo.
You just can't think in these terms. There is over 39 eye witnessesPost by mainframetech
Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in
the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits
of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was
completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell
if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping
wound in the right rear portion of the head."
By the time they reached the hospital, Jackie had closed the forward flapsPost by bigdog
Muchmore films. Zarpuder and Bill Newman were two of the closest observers
to JFK when the head shot struck and they both described the right side of
his head exploding, not the BOH. Both gave their accounts on live TV
before the Z-film was ever developed so their impressions could not have
been influenced by what the Z-film later showed.
"Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy's condition on arrival at the hospital?Post by mainframetech
they sometimes tell the truth. It would be silly of me to assume that one
lie says everything said was a lie. Of course, there's the Autopsy
Report, but he as ordered to lie in that one as has been shown.
LNs don't have the nerve to put out that stuff. After all, they wouldn't
want to support the opposition.
Oh my god! You need to read that passage and the attendant photo on
the next page that goes with it. To describe the bullet wound to the BOH,
they said to see Figure 13, which was the DRAWING by Ida Dox, which has
the bullet hole drawn right into it! They never referred to the photo
(which had no bullet hole), and to help, they put the Dox DRAWING on the
page right after as figure 13!!!! The description is of the DRAWING!
What a scam! Even the HSCA is in on it. It's not the first time they did
cover up on this case.
And worse, if they are using the DRAWING to prove things, then their
whole story comes into conflict, like with the over 39 eyewitnesses that
saw the 'large le' in the BOH which is completely missing from the
DRAWING!
Thank you John, for that little piece of proof to put in my file.
with the 'leaked' autopsy photos. Are those the ones that were shown to
the medical panels? If so, we've got a major scandal here. If they were
given these DRAWINGS, then they were hoodwinked into believing that there
was a shot that hit the BOH, when no such thing happened.
I believe a liar will indeed tell the truth at times. It all depends
on what their goals are. To back up his Autopsy Report (AR) he would need
a shot in the BOH. But he probably knew he couldn't get away with saying
the 'red spot' was a bullet hole, so he told the truth from his
examination at the AR.
telling the congress and the public that the drawing described the BOH
wound, when it really didn't and the wound was drawn in! If the panels
looked at the REAL photos, they would see the 'large hole' in the BOH seen
by over 39 eyewitnesses. Since they didn't report on anything like that,
they had to be shown something that was NOT the original wounds or even
the real photos.
The large hole in the BOH didn't show up in the Z-film nor in the Nix andPost by John McAdams
they use him as an absolute authority on the red spot in the cowlick
area.
Ah! I call him a liar when he gets caught lying. As with most liars,Post by mainframetech
Audrey Bell, and Radiologist Dr. Ebersole. I saw them as upstanding folks
of the medical community. Where did you get the idea there was something
wrong with them, as your comment suggests? If they are invalid witnesses,
I need to know so I don't go around using them all the time.
You missed my point. You call Humes a liar when it's convenient, butPost by John McAdams
Odd you would say that. My witnesses were Dr. Livingston, NursePost by mainframetech
instructions as to what to do with the body, and his Autopsy Report (AR).
He was caught lying in a few places, including his morning after phone
call to find out about the tracheotomy, which a number of witnesses showed
was wrong.
Yep, your sort of witnesses.Post by John McAdams
But when he won't admit that he goofed about the location of the
wound, he's a fearless truth teller.
Poor ole Humes was put on the spot when he was called and given hisBut when he won't admit that he goofed about the location of the
wound, he's a fearless truth teller.
instructions as to what to do with the body, and his Autopsy Report (AR).
He was caught lying in a few places, including his morning after phone
call to find out about the tracheotomy, which a number of witnesses showed
was wrong.
Audrey Bell, and Radiologist Dr. Ebersole. I saw them as upstanding folks
of the medical community. Where did you get the idea there was something
wrong with them, as your comment suggests? If they are invalid witnesses,
I need to know so I don't go around using them all the time.
they use him as an absolute authority on the red spot in the cowlick
area.
they sometimes tell the truth. It would be silly of me to assume that one
lie says everything said was a lie. Of course, there's the Autopsy
Report, but he as ordered to lie in that one as has been shown.
Post by John McAdams
Actually I read a lot of the ARRB stuff. The CT stuff is only when thePost by mainframetech
That's because you have only been reading buff stuff.Post by John McAdams
It was clear to all the medical panels that the "red spot" was an
entry defect for a bullet. We are talking about the Chark,
Rockefeller and HSCA panels.
Interesting. I didn't see that conclusion anywhere in my reading.Post by mainframetech
But the little 'red spot' can be seen by anyone in one of the autopsy
photos, and it's clear that it's not a bullet hole in the BOH.
That's absolutely stunning chutzpah!But the little 'red spot' can be seen by anyone in one of the autopsy
photos, and it's clear that it's not a bullet hole in the BOH.
It was clear to all the medical panels that the "red spot" was an
entry defect for a bullet. We are talking about the Chark,
Rockefeller and HSCA panels.
LNs don't have the nerve to put out that stuff. After all, they wouldn't
want to support the opposition.
Oh my god! You need to read that passage and the attendant photo on
the next page that goes with it. To describe the bullet wound to the BOH,
they said to see Figure 13, which was the DRAWING by Ida Dox, which has
the bullet hole drawn right into it! They never referred to the photo
(which had no bullet hole), and to help, they put the Dox DRAWING on the
page right after as figure 13!!!! The description is of the DRAWING!
What a scam! Even the HSCA is in on it. It's not the first time they did
cover up on this case.
And worse, if they are using the DRAWING to prove things, then their
whole story comes into conflict, like with the over 39 eyewitnesses that
saw the 'large le' in the BOH which is completely missing from the
DRAWING!
Thank you John, for that little piece of proof to put in my file.
Post by John McAdams
I wasn't making a statement, but asking a question. Something is fishyPost by mainframetech
That's why I quoted Humes who was there and saw the BOH and said first,
that he didn't know what the 'red spot' was, and second, that he had seen
the underlying skull and there was no bullet hole there to match the
surface scalp. Was he lying again? I think not. He had to tell the
"Dr. Petty then continued, "Also on this same photograph is a
ruler and approximately 2 centimeters or so down the ruler and
just to the right of it is a second apparent area of defect, and this
has been enlarged and is shown to you in an enlargement, I guess
No. 16, which shows you right opposite the 1 centimeter mark on
the ruler this defect or what appears to be a defect."
Thereafter, skipping a small portion and going to the very next
page, 40, you replied, "I don't know what that is. No. 1, I can
assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there
was no defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I
don't know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I
just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0907_7_Humes.pdf
What I can see is Humes saying that he saw NO bullet hole under the
scalp where the red spot was, and that the 'red spot' was nothing of any
importance. Stereoscopic photos of the 'red spot' will indeed show a 'red
spot', but not a hole. I saw 'on the internet' what Humes said he saw.
Now do we have phony photos here, or do we have false statements from
panels?
So the panels were lying?That's why I quoted Humes who was there and saw the BOH and said first,
that he didn't know what the 'red spot' was, and second, that he had seen
the underlying skull and there was no bullet hole there to match the
surface scalp. Was he lying again? I think not. He had to tell the
"Dr. Petty then continued, "Also on this same photograph is a
ruler and approximately 2 centimeters or so down the ruler and
just to the right of it is a second apparent area of defect, and this
has been enlarged and is shown to you in an enlargement, I guess
No. 16, which shows you right opposite the 1 centimeter mark on
the ruler this defect or what appears to be a defect."
Thereafter, skipping a small portion and going to the very next
page, 40, you replied, "I don't know what that is. No. 1, I can
assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there
was no defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I
don't know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I
just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0907_7_Humes.pdf
What I can see is Humes saying that he saw NO bullet hole under the
scalp where the red spot was, and that the 'red spot' was nothing of any
importance. Stereoscopic photos of the 'red spot' will indeed show a 'red
spot', but not a hole. I saw 'on the internet' what Humes said he saw.
Now do we have phony photos here, or do we have false statements from
panels?
with the 'leaked' autopsy photos. Are those the ones that were shown to
the medical panels? If so, we've got a major scandal here. If they were
given these DRAWINGS, then they were hoodwinked into believing that there
was a shot that hit the BOH, when no such thing happened.
I believe a liar will indeed tell the truth at times. It all depends
on what their goals are. To back up his Autopsy Report (AR) he would need
a shot in the BOH. But he probably knew he couldn't get away with saying
the 'red spot' was a bullet hole, so he told the truth from his
examination at the AR.
Post by John McAdams
and x-rays.
Well, I looked where you told me to, and found that the HSCA wasPost by mainframetech
I will say that if you want to see a bullet hole, you just have to
look at the Ida Dox drawing of the same photo and she was obviously told
to put in a bullet hole, which shows nicely in her drawing. It just isn't
in the photo she copied. I hope they didn't show her drawing as if it was
the photo.
Read the link I posted above. The FPP looked at the original photos,I will say that if you want to see a bullet hole, you just have to
look at the Ida Dox drawing of the same photo and she was obviously told
to put in a bullet hole, which shows nicely in her drawing. It just isn't
in the photo she copied. I hope they didn't show her drawing as if it was
the photo.
and x-rays.
telling the congress and the public that the drawing described the BOH
wound, when it really didn't and the wound was drawn in! If the panels
looked at the REAL photos, they would see the 'large hole' in the BOH seen
by over 39 eyewitnesses. Since they didn't report on anything like that,
they had to be shown something that was NOT the original wounds or even
the real photos.
Muchmore films. Zarpuder and Bill Newman were two of the closest observers
to JFK when the head shot struck and they both described the right side of
his head exploding, not the BOH. Both gave their accounts on live TV
before the Z-film was ever developed so their impressions could not have
been influenced by what the Z-film later showed.
Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in
the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits
of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was
completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell
if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping
wound in the right rear portion of the head."
leaving only the rear portion of the defect exposed where the bone
fragment had completely detached.
Post by mainframetech
Further, Tom Robinson, the mortician, was present when the body came
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
Note that the wound was in the lower BOH and was much larger than the
size of a bullet.
Why would you put more faith in a drawing than you do a photograph? OfFurther, Tom Robinson, the mortician, was present when the body came
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
Note that the wound was in the lower BOH and was much larger than the
size of a bullet.
course you do that selectively because you reject the Ida Dox drawing even
though that one closely matches the photo.
to the 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK. The drawing from Robinson matches
that and corroborates it. And the Dox drawing doe NOT match the photo in
one very important way. The photo has no bullet hole in it like the
drawing does.
I do NOT reject the Dox drawing because it shows a bullet hole that
didn't exist. I include it to show who is willing to lie to convince the
suckers that there was a bullet from above adn behind that killed JFK.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-29 22:08:18 UTC
Post by mainframetech
Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in
the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits
of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was
completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell
if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping
wound in the right rear portion of the head."
Further, Tom Robinson, the mortician, was present when the body came
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
Note that the wound was in the lower BOH and was much larger than the
size of a bullet.
Much? How much? What are the rules for the wound being larger than thePost by bigdog
Muchmore films. Zarpuder and Bill Newman were two of the closest observers
to JFK when the head shot struck and they both described the right side of
his head exploding, not the BOH. Both gave their accounts on live TV
before the Z-film was ever developed so their impressions could not have
been influenced by what the Z-film later showed.
"Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy's condition on arrival at the hospital?Post by mainframetech
they sometimes tell the truth. It would be silly of me to assume that one
lie says everything said was a lie. Of course, there's the Autopsy
Report, but he as ordered to lie in that one as has been shown.
LNs don't have the nerve to put out that stuff. After all, they wouldn't
want to support the opposition.
Oh my god! You need to read that passage and the attendant photo on
the next page that goes with it. To describe the bullet wound to the BOH,
they said to see Figure 13, which was the DRAWING by Ida Dox, which has
the bullet hole drawn right into it! They never referred to the photo
(which had no bullet hole), and to help, they put the Dox DRAWING on the
page right after as figure 13!!!! The description is of the DRAWING!
What a scam! Even the HSCA is in on it. It's not the first time they did
cover up on this case.
And worse, if they are using the DRAWING to prove things, then their
whole story comes into conflict, like with the over 39 eyewitnesses that
saw the 'large le' in the BOH which is completely missing from the
DRAWING!
Thank you John, for that little piece of proof to put in my file.
with the 'leaked' autopsy photos. Are those the ones that were shown to
the medical panels? If so, we've got a major scandal here. If they were
given these DRAWINGS, then they were hoodwinked into believing that there
was a shot that hit the BOH, when no such thing happened.
I believe a liar will indeed tell the truth at times. It all depends
on what their goals are. To back up his Autopsy Report (AR) he would need
a shot in the BOH. But he probably knew he couldn't get away with saying
the 'red spot' was a bullet hole, so he told the truth from his
examination at the AR.
telling the congress and the public that the drawing described the BOH
wound, when it really didn't and the wound was drawn in! If the panels
looked at the REAL photos, they would see the 'large hole' in the BOH seen
by over 39 eyewitnesses. Since they didn't report on anything like that,
they had to be shown something that was NOT the original wounds or even
the real photos.
The large hole in the BOH didn't show up in the Z-film nor in the Nix andPost by John McAdams
they use him as an absolute authority on the red spot in the cowlick
area.
Ah! I call him a liar when he gets caught lying. As with most liars,Post by mainframetech
Audrey Bell, and Radiologist Dr. Ebersole. I saw them as upstanding folks
of the medical community. Where did you get the idea there was something
wrong with them, as your comment suggests? If they are invalid witnesses,
I need to know so I don't go around using them all the time.
You missed my point. You call Humes a liar when it's convenient, butPost by John McAdams
Odd you would say that. My witnesses were Dr. Livingston, NursePost by mainframetech
instructions as to what to do with the body, and his Autopsy Report (AR).
He was caught lying in a few places, including his morning after phone
call to find out about the tracheotomy, which a number of witnesses showed
was wrong.
Yep, your sort of witnesses.Post by John McAdams
But when he won't admit that he goofed about the location of the
wound, he's a fearless truth teller.
Poor ole Humes was put on the spot when he was called and given hisBut when he won't admit that he goofed about the location of the
wound, he's a fearless truth teller.
instructions as to what to do with the body, and his Autopsy Report (AR).
He was caught lying in a few places, including his morning after phone
call to find out about the tracheotomy, which a number of witnesses showed
was wrong.
Audrey Bell, and Radiologist Dr. Ebersole. I saw them as upstanding folks
of the medical community. Where did you get the idea there was something
wrong with them, as your comment suggests? If they are invalid witnesses,
I need to know so I don't go around using them all the time.
they use him as an absolute authority on the red spot in the cowlick
area.
they sometimes tell the truth. It would be silly of me to assume that one
lie says everything said was a lie. Of course, there's the Autopsy
Report, but he as ordered to lie in that one as has been shown.
Post by John McAdams
Actually I read a lot of the ARRB stuff. The CT stuff is only when thePost by mainframetech
That's because you have only been reading buff stuff.Post by John McAdams
It was clear to all the medical panels that the "red spot" was an
entry defect for a bullet. We are talking about the Chark,
Rockefeller and HSCA panels.
Interesting. I didn't see that conclusion anywhere in my reading.Post by mainframetech
But the little 'red spot' can be seen by anyone in one of the autopsy
photos, and it's clear that it's not a bullet hole in the BOH.
That's absolutely stunning chutzpah!But the little 'red spot' can be seen by anyone in one of the autopsy
photos, and it's clear that it's not a bullet hole in the BOH.
It was clear to all the medical panels that the "red spot" was an
entry defect for a bullet. We are talking about the Chark,
Rockefeller and HSCA panels.
LNs don't have the nerve to put out that stuff. After all, they wouldn't
want to support the opposition.
Oh my god! You need to read that passage and the attendant photo on
the next page that goes with it. To describe the bullet wound to the BOH,
they said to see Figure 13, which was the DRAWING by Ida Dox, which has
the bullet hole drawn right into it! They never referred to the photo
(which had no bullet hole), and to help, they put the Dox DRAWING on the
page right after as figure 13!!!! The description is of the DRAWING!
What a scam! Even the HSCA is in on it. It's not the first time they did
cover up on this case.
And worse, if they are using the DRAWING to prove things, then their
whole story comes into conflict, like with the over 39 eyewitnesses that
saw the 'large le' in the BOH which is completely missing from the
DRAWING!
Thank you John, for that little piece of proof to put in my file.
Post by John McAdams
I wasn't making a statement, but asking a question. Something is fishyPost by mainframetech
That's why I quoted Humes who was there and saw the BOH and said first,
that he didn't know what the 'red spot' was, and second, that he had seen
the underlying skull and there was no bullet hole there to match the
surface scalp. Was he lying again? I think not. He had to tell the
"Dr. Petty then continued, "Also on this same photograph is a
ruler and approximately 2 centimeters or so down the ruler and
just to the right of it is a second apparent area of defect, and this
has been enlarged and is shown to you in an enlargement, I guess
No. 16, which shows you right opposite the 1 centimeter mark on
the ruler this defect or what appears to be a defect."
Thereafter, skipping a small portion and going to the very next
page, 40, you replied, "I don't know what that is. No. 1, I can
assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there
was no defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I
don't know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I
just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0907_7_Humes.pdf
What I can see is Humes saying that he saw NO bullet hole under the
scalp where the red spot was, and that the 'red spot' was nothing of any
importance. Stereoscopic photos of the 'red spot' will indeed show a 'red
spot', but not a hole. I saw 'on the internet' what Humes said he saw.
Now do we have phony photos here, or do we have false statements from
panels?
So the panels were lying?That's why I quoted Humes who was there and saw the BOH and said first,
that he didn't know what the 'red spot' was, and second, that he had seen
the underlying skull and there was no bullet hole there to match the
surface scalp. Was he lying again? I think not. He had to tell the
"Dr. Petty then continued, "Also on this same photograph is a
ruler and approximately 2 centimeters or so down the ruler and
just to the right of it is a second apparent area of defect, and this
has been enlarged and is shown to you in an enlargement, I guess
No. 16, which shows you right opposite the 1 centimeter mark on
the ruler this defect or what appears to be a defect."
Thereafter, skipping a small portion and going to the very next
page, 40, you replied, "I don't know what that is. No. 1, I can
assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there
was no defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I
don't know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I
just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0907_7_Humes.pdf
What I can see is Humes saying that he saw NO bullet hole under the
scalp where the red spot was, and that the 'red spot' was nothing of any
importance. Stereoscopic photos of the 'red spot' will indeed show a 'red
spot', but not a hole. I saw 'on the internet' what Humes said he saw.
Now do we have phony photos here, or do we have false statements from
panels?
with the 'leaked' autopsy photos. Are those the ones that were shown to
the medical panels? If so, we've got a major scandal here. If they were
given these DRAWINGS, then they were hoodwinked into believing that there
was a shot that hit the BOH, when no such thing happened.
I believe a liar will indeed tell the truth at times. It all depends
on what their goals are. To back up his Autopsy Report (AR) he would need
a shot in the BOH. But he probably knew he couldn't get away with saying
the 'red spot' was a bullet hole, so he told the truth from his
examination at the AR.
Post by John McAdams
and x-rays.
Well, I looked where you told me to, and found that the HSCA wasPost by mainframetech
I will say that if you want to see a bullet hole, you just have to
look at the Ida Dox drawing of the same photo and she was obviously told
to put in a bullet hole, which shows nicely in her drawing. It just isn't
in the photo she copied. I hope they didn't show her drawing as if it was
the photo.
Read the link I posted above. The FPP looked at the original photos,I will say that if you want to see a bullet hole, you just have to
look at the Ida Dox drawing of the same photo and she was obviously told
to put in a bullet hole, which shows nicely in her drawing. It just isn't
in the photo she copied. I hope they didn't show her drawing as if it was
the photo.
and x-rays.
telling the congress and the public that the drawing described the BOH
wound, when it really didn't and the wound was drawn in! If the panels
looked at the REAL photos, they would see the 'large hole' in the BOH seen
by over 39 eyewitnesses. Since they didn't report on anything like that,
they had to be shown something that was NOT the original wounds or even
the real photos.
Muchmore films. Zarpuder and Bill Newman were two of the closest observers
to JFK when the head shot struck and they both described the right side of
his head exploding, not the BOH. Both gave their accounts on live TV
before the Z-film was ever developed so their impressions could not have
been influenced by what the Z-film later showed.
Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in
the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits
of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was
completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell
if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping
wound in the right rear portion of the head."
Further, Tom Robinson, the mortician, was present when the body came
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
Note that the wound was in the lower BOH and was much larger than the
size of a bullet.
diameter of the bullet? Did you remember that the diameter of Oswald's
6.5 mm ammo was actually 6.8 mm? Is that much larger than you expected a
6.5 mm bullet to be?
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-22 18:37:13 UTC
Post by John McAdams
It was clear to all the medical panels that the "red spot" was an
entry defect for a bullet. We are talking about the Chark,
Rockefeller and HSCA panels.
And they all had a stereo pair of camera original transparencies to
look at.
But amateur buffs looking at mediocre images on the Internet "see"
something different.
Funny how only the "buffs" have the actual autopsy photos and WCPost by mainframetech
instructions as to what to do with the body, and his Autopsy Report (AR).
He was caught lying in a few places, including his morning after phone
call to find out about the tracheotomy, which a number of witnesses showed
was wrong.
Yep, your sort of witnesses.Post by John McAdams
But when he won't admit that he goofed about the location of the
wound, he's a fearless truth teller.
Poor ole Humes was put on the spot when he was called and given hisBut when he won't admit that he goofed about the location of the
wound, he's a fearless truth teller.
instructions as to what to do with the body, and his Autopsy Report (AR).
He was caught lying in a few places, including his morning after phone
call to find out about the tracheotomy, which a number of witnesses showed
was wrong.
Post by mainframetech
But the little 'red spot' can be seen by anyone in one of the autopsy
photos, and it's clear that it's not a bullet hole in the BOH.
That's absolutely stunning chutzpah!But the little 'red spot' can be seen by anyone in one of the autopsy
photos, and it's clear that it's not a bullet hole in the BOH.
It was clear to all the medical panels that the "red spot" was an
entry defect for a bullet. We are talking about the Chark,
Rockefeller and HSCA panels.
And they all had a stereo pair of camera original transparencies to
look at.
But amateur buffs looking at mediocre images on the Internet "see"
something different.
defenders have never even seen them!
Post by John McAdams
But a funny coincidence, it's what they *want* to see.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
But a funny coincidence, it's what they *want* to see.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
bigdog
2018-07-20 22:43:15 UTC
Post by mainframetech
of what I saw is somehow more right?
I know it is.Post by bigdog
the findings of the 3 pathologists who had the body in front of them as
well as teams of highly qualified review panels who saw so many more
photos as well as x-rays.
WRONG as usual! So you think your amateur opinion of my flat statementPost by mainframetech
DON'T GIVE ME THAT COVERUP CRAP! The photo of the BOH that we have is
perfectly valid and clear for the purpose of seeing a bullet hole. But
there is none there. The photo shows the areas where the pathologists
said the bullet hole was located, but there's nothing there. And you
won't want to hear it, but the photo of the BOH is also very WRONG, since
there were over 39 eyewitnesses that there was a 'large hole' in the BOH,
right where the photo shows hair and no hole. Not only do the photos show
falseness in the reporting, but they prove they were altered as well. If
the medical examiners saw those photos, then there's no doubt they got the
wrong conclusions as to the cause of death. Naturally, the LNs reading
this will ignore completely the photographic proof just shown.
So you think your amateurish opinion based on looking at one photo trumpsDON'T GIVE ME THAT COVERUP CRAP! The photo of the BOH that we have is
perfectly valid and clear for the purpose of seeing a bullet hole. But
there is none there. The photo shows the areas where the pathologists
said the bullet hole was located, but there's nothing there. And you
won't want to hear it, but the photo of the BOH is also very WRONG, since
there were over 39 eyewitnesses that there was a 'large hole' in the BOH,
right where the photo shows hair and no hole. Not only do the photos show
falseness in the reporting, but they prove they were altered as well. If
the medical examiners saw those photos, then there's no doubt they got the
wrong conclusions as to the cause of death. Naturally, the LNs reading
this will ignore completely the photographic proof just shown.
the findings of the 3 pathologists who had the body in front of them as
well as teams of highly qualified review panels who saw so many more
photos as well as x-rays.
of what I saw is somehow more right?
Post by mainframetech
Then why didn't you take the
challenge when I first made it, to point out the bullet hole location
using the information from the pathologists as to the location of the
bullet hole?
I'm not dumb enough to think by looking at one photo that I can make aThen why didn't you take the
challenge when I first made it, to point out the bullet hole location
using the information from the pathologists as to the location of the
bullet hole?
better judgement about an entry wound in JFK's head than the original
pathologists who saw the body and the review panels who saw so many more
and better quality photos than I have.
I don't need to see the bullet hole. Extremely qualified people who saw
many more and better photos as well as x-rays saw it. They don't need me
to confirm their findings.
Post by mainframetech
I never
heard you comment after looking, or did you avoid looking too so you could
have 'plausible denial'? It doesn't take experts to see that there is no
bullet hole in the BOH of that photo, and one photo is all that's needed
to tell that there's no bullet hole.
Amazing how you think by looking at one photo your opinion should trumpI never
heard you comment after looking, or did you avoid looking too so you could
have 'plausible denial'? It doesn't take experts to see that there is no
bullet hole in the BOH of that photo, and one photo is all that's needed
to tell that there's no bullet hole.
that of the original pathology team and all the review panels. Is there no
end to your silliness. Apparently not.
Post by mainframetech
As well, you haven't found any explanation for there to be hair all
over the BOH, when over 39 eyewitnesses said they saw a 'large hole'
there. Many of them were medically trained and knew what they were
describing.
You are the one who needs to explain that conundrum. You are the one whoAs well, you haven't found any explanation for there to be hair all
over the BOH, when over 39 eyewitnesses said they saw a 'large hole'
there. Many of them were medically trained and knew what they were
describing.
claims there was a blowout in the BOH. I know better.
Post by mainframetech
I'm having a hard time believing that you fell for that, since it was
"Humes’ comments regarding the supposed higher wound during his
HSCA testimony are particularly telling. After several failed attempts to
get both Humes and Boswell to agree the inshoot was high, the
HSCA’s Charles Petty, MD had another go with Humes, this time
concerning the possibility a red spot in the autopsy photos visible at the
top of JFK’s otherwise pristine rear scalp was the inshoot. Gazing
together at the photograph showing the all but unblemished rear of
“I don’t know what that [red spot] is. No. 1, I can assure
you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no
defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don’t
know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don’t, I
just don’t know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance.”
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm
As I said, I don't know whether that red spot is the bullet hole. If itI'm having a hard time believing that you fell for that, since it was
"Humes’ comments regarding the supposed higher wound during his
HSCA testimony are particularly telling. After several failed attempts to
get both Humes and Boswell to agree the inshoot was high, the
HSCA’s Charles Petty, MD had another go with Humes, this time
concerning the possibility a red spot in the autopsy photos visible at the
top of JFK’s otherwise pristine rear scalp was the inshoot. Gazing
together at the photograph showing the all but unblemished rear of
“I don’t know what that [red spot] is. No. 1, I can assure
you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no
defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don’t
know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don’t, I
just don’t know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance.”
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm
isn't, it is elsewhere. I'm not going to dismiss the unanimous opinion of
every medical examiner who saw so much more evidence than I have just
because I don't see an obvious bullet hole. Why would you do so?
Post by mainframetech
expert to determine if there was a bullet-sized hole in the BOH. Anyone
can see plainly that there is no such thing.
So you think by looking at one photo you can make a better judgement thanPost by bigdog
What I do know is that at scalp had been pulled away from the
skull and if it was pulled back up for that picture, it may not have lined
up with the hole in the scalp making the hole harder to see. It's also
possible the entry wound is hidden under the hair. In any case, it would
be very silly of me to think with my complete lack of training in forensic
medicine that I could look at one photo and make a better determination
than the three pathologists who conducted the autopsy and teams of the
best medical examiners in the country who got to see far more and better
quality photos and x-rays than I have. What kind of moron would do
something like that?
The moron would be the one that thought that it would have to take anWhat I do know is that at scalp had been pulled away from the
skull and if it was pulled back up for that picture, it may not have lined
up with the hole in the scalp making the hole harder to see. It's also
possible the entry wound is hidden under the hair. In any case, it would
be very silly of me to think with my complete lack of training in forensic
medicine that I could look at one photo and make a better determination
than the three pathologists who conducted the autopsy and teams of the
best medical examiners in the country who got to see far more and better
quality photos and x-rays than I have. What kind of moron would do
something like that?
expert to determine if there was a bullet-sized hole in the BOH. Anyone
can see plainly that there is no such thing.
the review panels who saw so much more. Absurd.
Post by mainframetech
which you tend to do. I've pointed out that the photo of the BOH was
altered, and there is no doubt about it.
Oh, so you are using a altered photo to prove there was no entry wound inPost by bigdog
You are making a big deal about not being able to see a small entry wound
in the BOH. Apparently it doesn't bother you that the large blowout in the
BOH that you claim was there doesn't show up in that photo either. Got any
explanation for that?
Of course! I've addressed that recently. You probably missed it,You are making a big deal about not being able to see a small entry wound
in the BOH. Apparently it doesn't bother you that the large blowout in the
BOH that you claim was there doesn't show up in that photo either. Got any
explanation for that?
which you tend to do. I've pointed out that the photo of the BOH was
altered, and there is no doubt about it.
the BOH. Brilliant work, Sherlock. Did the people who altered the photo to
hide the big hole forget to alter it to show a little hole?
Post by mainframetech
Sworn testimony says there was a
'large hole' there, and yet the photo shows what the original government
report told about, which was no large hole in the BOH. Whoever altered
the autopsy photos forgot to put in the bullet hole,
I suggested that facetiously before I read your comment in which youSworn testimony says there was a
'large hole' there, and yet the photo shows what the original government
report told about, which was no large hole in the BOH. Whoever altered
the autopsy photos forgot to put in the bullet hole,
stated that seriously. Amazing these klutzes who masterminded this
conspiracy did so many dumb things yet still pulled it off and have gotten
away with it all these years. They couldn't hire competent gunmen. They
didn't give them decent ammo. They put an army of shooters in Dealey Plaza
and then tried to blame one man. They planted a bullet at Parkland but put
it on the wrong gurney. They sent a guy to kill Oswald but he didn't get
there at the announced time of the transfer. They played a ridiculous game
of musical caskets at Bethesda instead of just having the pathologists
falsify the report. You claim they falsified the BOH photo but forgot to
put in an entrance wound. They forgot to alter the photo that shows a
bullet hole in the forehead/temple. All this and about a dozen other
things that I've forgotten about. You have to believe they made all these
mistakes and yet still got away with the crime of the century. It is truly
amazing the things you are willing to convince yourself of to fool
yourself into believing in a non-existent conspiracy.
Post by mainframetech
but they didn't
forget to tell Ida Dox to put it in to her drawing of the original photo.
Talk about hilarious! The drawing has a bullet hole, and the photo it
came from has nothing! LOL!
Oh, so they were still engineering the cover up when Ida Dox produced thebut they didn't
forget to tell Ida Dox to put it in to her drawing of the original photo.
Talk about hilarious! The drawing has a bullet hole, and the photo it
came from has nothing! LOL!
drawings for the HSCA. They had the HSCA continue with the cover up but
forgot to tell them to conclude that there was only one shooter. What
morons.
Post by mainframetech
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
Yes it does so I ask you again. Why would you expect the same answers tohttp://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
Post by bigdog
Depends on the questions.Post by mainframetech
see the difference. And it's not due to different questions.
Why would you expect him to give the same answers to different questions?Post by bigdog
Both were interviews and the questions were different so naturally the
answers would be different.
Oh, get away! His 2 statements did not agree, and it is simple toPost by mainframetech
Go ahead, look for the bullet entry! When you can't find it, you'll
have to call Lipsey a liar.
And don't forget his mismatch in his HSCA statement and his video.
More lies.
There were no lies in either of the two statements. They are compatible.Go ahead, look for the bullet entry! When you can't find it, you'll
have to call Lipsey a liar.
And don't forget his mismatch in his HSCA statement and his video.
More lies.
Both were interviews and the questions were different so naturally the
answers would be different.
see the difference. And it's not due to different questions.
different questions.
Post by mainframetech
If I am wrong you should be able to point to a witness that said twoPost by bigdog
who weighed in described one casket.
WRONG!Post by mainframetech
there were 2 caskets and they arrived at different times, and you still
try to pretend that the evidence didn't happen! That's weird! You base
your imaginary story on guesses as to road conditions, and speed of
driving, when you have flat statements of what had transpired in reality.
And of course, you've left out the time spent at the main entrance while
the family got out of the ambulance.
There is no sworn testimony by anyone that two caskets arrived. EverybodyPost by bigdog
imaginary shipping casket to get to Bethesda 42 minute before the bronze
casket. For one it's only a 40 minute drive from Andrews to Bethesda and
that is if you don't have a police escort. The ambulance had a huge head
start on any shipping casket that would have been unloaded from AF1 after
all the cameras and witnesses had left the area. Even if the shipping
casket had been sent to Bethesda by teleportation, it could not have
arrived 42 minutes before the bronze casket.
I wonder about you. You get sworn testimony and corroboration thatPost by mainframetech
Now here's a final statement from Lipsey, since you're so determined to
"The ceremonial troop in Washington had been arranged to meet the body at
Andrews. Put it in a hearse. We had a decoy hearse because we knew there
was a mob waiting at Bethesda Naval Hospital. So we got in a couple of
these helicopters with our honor guard when they left and flew over to the
hospital to get there before they did. And when they came in, one of the
hearses went right up to the front door. All of the crowd, of course,
rushed over there. The one with the body in it went around to the back
where the morgue was and we unloaded it. We met them in the back and
unloaded it right there to avoid the news media and the crowd and
everything else."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
And while Lipsey said the casket went by road, there was no choice that
it went by helicopter because it got to the morgue 42 minutes BEFORE the
empty Bronze casket. Lipsey has clearly said there were 2 ambulances, one
was 'decoy', and one went to the back door with the body, and the other
went to the main entrance.
I've showed you the time line that would have made it impossible for yourNow here's a final statement from Lipsey, since you're so determined to
"The ceremonial troop in Washington had been arranged to meet the body at
Andrews. Put it in a hearse. We had a decoy hearse because we knew there
was a mob waiting at Bethesda Naval Hospital. So we got in a couple of
these helicopters with our honor guard when they left and flew over to the
hospital to get there before they did. And when they came in, one of the
hearses went right up to the front door. All of the crowd, of course,
rushed over there. The one with the body in it went around to the back
where the morgue was and we unloaded it. We met them in the back and
unloaded it right there to avoid the news media and the crowd and
everything else."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
And while Lipsey said the casket went by road, there was no choice that
it went by helicopter because it got to the morgue 42 minutes BEFORE the
empty Bronze casket. Lipsey has clearly said there were 2 ambulances, one
was 'decoy', and one went to the back door with the body, and the other
went to the main entrance.
imaginary shipping casket to get to Bethesda 42 minute before the bronze
casket. For one it's only a 40 minute drive from Andrews to Bethesda and
that is if you don't have a police escort. The ambulance had a huge head
start on any shipping casket that would have been unloaded from AF1 after
all the cameras and witnesses had left the area. Even if the shipping
casket had been sent to Bethesda by teleportation, it could not have
arrived 42 minutes before the bronze casket.
there were 2 caskets and they arrived at different times, and you still
try to pretend that the evidence didn't happen! That's weird! You base
your imaginary story on guesses as to road conditions, and speed of
driving, when you have flat statements of what had transpired in reality.
And of course, you've left out the time spent at the main entrance while
the family got out of the ambulance.
who weighed in described one casket.
caskets arrived at different times. You still can't.
Post by mainframetech
And you've been given an answer to that many times. Don't
begin to pretend that you never heard the answer.
You've never cited a single witness who said they saw two caskets arriveAnd you've been given an answer to that many times. Don't
begin to pretend that you never heard the answer.
and you still can't.
Post by mainframetech
Dennis David gave his
statement that he helped to bring in the SHIPPING casket, and then at
least a half hour later he saw the motorcade and ambulance that Jackie was
in with the Bronze casket arrive at the main entrance of the hospital.
The family came in and was taken by elevator to the 17th floor to the VIP
suite.
He saw the family dropped off at the front but didn't say he saw anotherDennis David gave his
statement that he helped to bring in the SHIPPING casket, and then at
least a half hour later he saw the motorcade and ambulance that Jackie was
in with the Bronze casket arrive at the main entrance of the hospital.
The family came in and was taken by elevator to the 17th floor to the VIP
suite.
casket.
Post by mainframetech
So you've got the same person seeing separate casket arrivals with
time in between.
Point to where he said he saw a second casket. Can't do it? Didn't thinkSo you've got the same person seeing separate casket arrivals with
time in between.
so.
Post by mainframetech
He brought in the SHIPPING casket at 6:35pm, and after
at least a half hour (by his own statement) he saw the ambulance with the
Bronze casket from AF1 stop at the main entrance.
Quote him saying he saw a bronze casket in addition to the shippingHe brought in the SHIPPING casket at 6:35pm, and after
at least a half hour (by his own statement) he saw the ambulance with the
Bronze casket from AF1 stop at the main entrance.
casket. Here is the page from Doug Horne's summary:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=708#relPageId=3&tab=page
He does not say he saw a bronze casket come out of the Navy ambulance. He
saw one casket. Period. You have no one who saw two caskets.
Post by mainframetech
That makes it about
7:05pm for the arrival at the main entrance, and then the ambulance let
off the family and went around back to the morgue, which should be another
10 minutes, which makes it 7:17pm that the Bronze casket reached the
morgue.
Here you go again using Sibert's statement the body was being prepared forThat makes it about
7:05pm for the arrival at the main entrance, and then the ambulance let
off the family and went around back to the morgue, which should be another
10 minutes, which makes it 7:17pm that the Bronze casket reached the
morgue.
autopsy at 7:17 and pretending he said that was the time of arrival. Why
do you continue with this fabrication which you know is false?
Post by mainframetech
was the beginning of preparation supposedly, and Sibert was the one saying
it.
It was NOT the time the body arrived at the morgue. No one said a bodyPost by bigdog
They differed on the time of arrival
and the type of casket but nobody said two caskets arrived. Nobody except
silly conspiracy hobbyists who seem to be incapable of logical thought.
WRONG! See above.They differed on the time of arrival
and the type of casket but nobody said two caskets arrived. Nobody except
silly conspiracy hobbyists who seem to be incapable of logical thought.
Post by bigdog
You can add a couple minutes it would have taken to drop the passengers
off at the front entrance and then drive around to the morgue loading
dock. You still can't come close to getting your helicopter to Bethesda 42
minutes before bronze casket. Your 42 minute time differential is
ludicrous. For one you are comparing one person's ESTIMATE of the time of
arrival with Sibert's statement that by 7:17 the body was being prepared
for autopsy.
Sibert was clear, the body was NOT being prepared at that time, thatYou can add a couple minutes it would have taken to drop the passengers
off at the front entrance and then drive around to the morgue loading
dock. You still can't come close to getting your helicopter to Bethesda 42
minutes before bronze casket. Your 42 minute time differential is
ludicrous. For one you are comparing one person's ESTIMATE of the time of
arrival with Sibert's statement that by 7:17 the body was being prepared
for autopsy.
was the beginning of preparation supposedly, and Sibert was the one saying
it.
arrived at that time and you know it yet continue to claim that is the
case.
Post by mainframetech
timing is shown by your foolish comments about the time. There is indeed
42 minutes, from 6:35pm to 7:17pm.
So you can do simple arithmetic. That doesn't establish that two casketsPost by bigdog
You aren't even comparing two time of arrival estimates. How
silly is that? Your 42 minute time differential has been refuted just
about every way imaginable and yet you refuse to let go of it. It is an
essential component for what you want to believe happened and so you cling
to it no matter how many ways it is shown to you that it is impossible.
You might fool yourself with this nonsense but no reasonable person is
going to be swayed by such drivel. IOW, you are wasting your time, but
that pretty much describes 54 years of the conspiracy hobby.
Saying it won't make it so. Your complete inability to follow theYou aren't even comparing two time of arrival estimates. How
silly is that? Your 42 minute time differential has been refuted just
about every way imaginable and yet you refuse to let go of it. It is an
essential component for what you want to believe happened and so you cling
to it no matter how many ways it is shown to you that it is impossible.
You might fool yourself with this nonsense but no reasonable person is
going to be swayed by such drivel. IOW, you are wasting your time, but
that pretty much describes 54 years of the conspiracy hobby.
timing is shown by your foolish comments about the time. There is indeed
42 minutes, from 6:35pm to 7:17pm.
arrived at the morgue 42 minutes apart. The first time is an estimate and
the second time isn't even a time of arrival.
Post by mainframetech
That's 42 minutes that Humes and
Boswell had to do their clandestine work on the body. At 7:17pm as shown
above, the Bronze casket arrives for the first time, and Humes and Boswell
have to stop any work.
You just pile one silly conclusion on top of another.That's 42 minutes that Humes and
Boswell had to do their clandestine work on the body. At 7:17pm as shown
above, the Bronze casket arrives for the first time, and Humes and Boswell
have to stop any work.
Post by mainframetech
Further, though it was Sibert that said the preparation began at
7:17pm, that left almost an hour to sit around.
So now we are up to almost an hour. Why stop there.Further, though it was Sibert that said the preparation began at
7:17pm, that left almost an hour to sit around.
Post by mainframetech
I don't think that's what
happened. I think that Sibert and O'Neill sent out the Bronze casket now
with the body in it, to be found by the honor team and to be brought back
at 8:00pm, and with the help of Sibert and O'Neill, they took the body out
of the casket as they told everyone, and put it on the table, which
satisfied the narrative for the FBI men. That was the third arrival, the
second for the Bronze casket.
Aren't you the least bit embarrassed to suggest something so ridiculous?I don't think that's what
happened. I think that Sibert and O'Neill sent out the Bronze casket now
with the body in it, to be found by the honor team and to be brought back
at 8:00pm, and with the help of Sibert and O'Neill, they took the body out
of the casket as they told everyone, and put it on the table, which
satisfied the narrative for the FBI men. That was the third arrival, the
second for the Bronze casket.
mainframetech
2018-07-22 18:31:52 UTC
Post by bigdog
better judgement about an entry wound in JFK's head than the original
pathologists who saw the body and the review panels who saw so many more
and better quality photos than I have.
LOL! Not willing to take the challenge when you're so sure that aPost by mainframetech
of what I saw is somehow more right?
I know it is.Post by bigdog
the findings of the 3 pathologists who had the body in front of them as
well as teams of highly qualified review panels who saw so many more
photos as well as x-rays.
WRONG as usual! So you think your amateur opinion of my flat statementPost by mainframetech
DON'T GIVE ME THAT COVERUP CRAP! The photo of the BOH that we have is
perfectly valid and clear for the purpose of seeing a bullet hole. But
there is none there. The photo shows the areas where the pathologists
said the bullet hole was located, but there's nothing there. And you
won't want to hear it, but the photo of the BOH is also very WRONG, since
there were over 39 eyewitnesses that there was a 'large hole' in the BOH,
right where the photo shows hair and no hole. Not only do the photos show
falseness in the reporting, but they prove they were altered as well. If
the medical examiners saw those photos, then there's no doubt they got the
wrong conclusions as to the cause of death. Naturally, the LNs reading
this will ignore completely the photographic proof just shown.
So you think your amateurish opinion based on looking at one photo trumpsDON'T GIVE ME THAT COVERUP CRAP! The photo of the BOH that we have is
perfectly valid and clear for the purpose of seeing a bullet hole. But
there is none there. The photo shows the areas where the pathologists
said the bullet hole was located, but there's nothing there. And you
won't want to hear it, but the photo of the BOH is also very WRONG, since
there were over 39 eyewitnesses that there was a 'large hole' in the BOH,
right where the photo shows hair and no hole. Not only do the photos show
falseness in the reporting, but they prove they were altered as well. If
the medical examiners saw those photos, then there's no doubt they got the
wrong conclusions as to the cause of death. Naturally, the LNs reading
this will ignore completely the photographic proof just shown.
the findings of the 3 pathologists who had the body in front of them as
well as teams of highly qualified review panels who saw so many more
photos as well as x-rays.
of what I saw is somehow more right?
Post by mainframetech
Then why didn't you take the
challenge when I first made it, to point out the bullet hole location
using the information from the pathologists as to the location of the
bullet hole?
I'm not dumb enough to think by looking at one photo that I can make aThen why didn't you take the
challenge when I first made it, to point out the bullet hole location
using the information from the pathologists as to the location of the
bullet hole?
better judgement about an entry wound in JFK's head than the original
pathologists who saw the body and the review panels who saw so many more
and better quality photos than I have.
bullet struck the BOH? Wow! No belief in your own WCR! More proof for
me that the WCR is a tired old phony and outmoded. So you try to lay off
the blame on the photo quality, which is just fine for the purpose of
seeing a bullet hole, and you've blamed your lack of courage to look for a
bullet hole on the fact that it's only one photo! Failed excuses! Your
lack of courage means that there is NO bullet hole there in that photo,
and we both know the reason. There was no bullet hole in the BOH, and the
photo is a phony in either case. One more for the CT scorecard.
Post by bigdog
I don't need to see the bullet hole. Extremely qualified people who saw
many more and better photos as well as x-rays saw it. They don't need me
to confirm their findings.
Ah! Still blaming the photo quality. But you haven't even looked atI don't need to see the bullet hole. Extremely qualified people who saw
many more and better photos as well as x-rays saw it. They don't need me
to confirm their findings.
the photo so how would you know the quality is bad? I think the quality
is just fine to see a bullet hole, if there was one there.
Post by bigdog
that of the original pathology team and all the review panels. Is there no
end to your silliness. Apparently not.
Well, you might want to try and explain why no one can se a bulletPost by mainframetech
I never
heard you comment after looking, or did you avoid looking too so you could
have 'plausible denial'? It doesn't take experts to see that there is no
bullet hole in the BOH of that photo, and one photo is all that's needed
to tell that there's no bullet hole.
Amazing how you think by looking at one photo your opinion should trumpI never
heard you comment after looking, or did you avoid looking too so you could
have 'plausible denial'? It doesn't take experts to see that there is no
bullet hole in the BOH of that photo, and one photo is all that's needed
to tell that there's no bullet hole.
that of the original pathology team and all the review panels. Is there no
end to your silliness. Apparently not.
hole right where the pathologists said there was supposed to be one. But
of course, you don't want to get too deep into this, because there is only
one final answer. The WCR is stupid, and the quality of the photo is just
fine for seeing bullet holes. One photo of the right area is all that is
needed to determine if there is a bullet hole there or not.
Post by bigdog
claims there was a blowout in the BOH. I know better.
Ah! That means that you have some explanation for why over 39Post by mainframetech
As well, you haven't found any explanation for there to be hair all
over the BOH, when over 39 eyewitnesses said they saw a 'large hole'
there. Many of them were medically trained and knew what they were
describing.
You are the one who needs to explain that conundrum. You are the one whoAs well, you haven't found any explanation for there to be hair all
over the BOH, when over 39 eyewitnesses said they saw a 'large hole'
there. Many of them were medically trained and knew what they were
describing.
claims there was a blowout in the BOH. I know better.
eyewitnesses all corroborated each other that the 'large hole' was there.
Post by bigdog
isn't, it is elsewhere. I'm not going to dismiss the unanimous opinion of
every medical examiner who saw so much more evidence than I have just
because I don't see an obvious bullet hole. Why would you do so?
"obvious bullet hole"? Then why can't it be seen? The variationsPost by mainframetech
I'm having a hard time believing that you fell for that, since it was
"Humes’ comments regarding the supposed higher wound during his
HSCA testimony are particularly telling. After several failed attempts to
get both Humes and Boswell to agree the inshoot was high, the
HSCA’s Charles Petty, MD had another go with Humes, this time
concerning the possibility a red spot in the autopsy photos visible at the
top of JFK’s otherwise pristine rear scalp was the inshoot. Gazing
together at the photograph showing the all but unblemished rear of
“I don’t know what that [red spot] is. No. 1, I can assure
you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no
defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don’t
know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don’t, I
just don’t know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance.”
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm
As I said, I don't know whether that red spot is the bullet hole. If itI'm having a hard time believing that you fell for that, since it was
"Humes’ comments regarding the supposed higher wound during his
HSCA testimony are particularly telling. After several failed attempts to
get both Humes and Boswell to agree the inshoot was high, the
HSCA’s Charles Petty, MD had another go with Humes, this time
concerning the possibility a red spot in the autopsy photos visible at the
top of JFK’s otherwise pristine rear scalp was the inshoot. Gazing
together at the photograph showing the all but unblemished rear of
“I don’t know what that [red spot] is. No. 1, I can assure
you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no
defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don’t
know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don’t, I
just don’t know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance.”
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm
isn't, it is elsewhere. I'm not going to dismiss the unanimous opinion of
every medical examiner who saw so much more evidence than I have just
because I don't see an obvious bullet hole. Why would you do so?
given by the pathologists for locations are all within the confines of the
photo in question, so why would the bullet hole not be there? The photo
quality is very good so that's not an excuse. I think you've just proved
that there is no bullet hole in the BOH.
Post by bigdog
the review panels who saw so much more. Absurd.
What's absurd is your attempt to pretend that the photo can't show aPost by mainframetech
expert to determine if there was a bullet-sized hole in the BOH. Anyone
can see plainly that there is no such thing.
So you think by looking at one photo you can make a better judgement thanPost by bigdog
What I do know is that at scalp had been pulled away from the
skull and if it was pulled back up for that picture, it may not have lined
up with the hole in the scalp making the hole harder to see. It's also
possible the entry wound is hidden under the hair. In any case, it would
be very silly of me to think with my complete lack of training in forensic
medicine that I could look at one photo and make a better determination
than the three pathologists who conducted the autopsy and teams of the
best medical examiners in the country who got to see far more and better
quality photos and x-rays than I have. What kind of moron would do
something like that?
The moron would be the one that thought that it would have to take anWhat I do know is that at scalp had been pulled away from the
skull and if it was pulled back up for that picture, it may not have lined
up with the hole in the scalp making the hole harder to see. It's also
possible the entry wound is hidden under the hair. In any case, it would
be very silly of me to think with my complete lack of training in forensic
medicine that I could look at one photo and make a better determination
than the three pathologists who conducted the autopsy and teams of the
best medical examiners in the country who got to see far more and better
quality photos and x-rays than I have. What kind of moron would do
something like that?
expert to determine if there was a bullet-sized hole in the BOH. Anyone
can see plainly that there is no such thing.
the review panels who saw so much more. Absurd.
simple bullet hole. This is not rocket science. It's a simple hole in
the BOH in a photo. So where is it?
Post by bigdog
the BOH. Brilliant work, Sherlock. Did the people who altered the photo to
hide the big hole forget to alter it to show a little hole?
Sounds like you figured it out all by yourself! Excellent workPost by mainframetech
which you tend to do. I've pointed out that the photo of the BOH was
altered, and there is no doubt about it.
Oh, so you are using a altered photo to prove there was no entry wound inPost by bigdog
You are making a big deal about not being able to see a small entry wound
in the BOH. Apparently it doesn't bother you that the large blowout in the
BOH that you claim was there doesn't show up in that photo either. Got any
explanation for that?
Of course! I've addressed that recently. You probably missed it,You are making a big deal about not being able to see a small entry wound
in the BOH. Apparently it doesn't bother you that the large blowout in the
BOH that you claim was there doesn't show up in that photo either. Got any
explanation for that?
which you tend to do. I've pointed out that the photo of the BOH was
altered, and there is no doubt about it.
the BOH. Brilliant work, Sherlock. Did the people who altered the photo to
hide the big hole forget to alter it to show a little hole?
Sherlock! If the photo was legitimate, then there is NO hole in the BOH.
But if the photo is altered, then we're dealing with altered evidence,
which means the possibility that the panels were shown the phony photos so
that they would come to the wrong conclusion as to the cause of death. A
bullet from above and behind.
Post by bigdog
stated that seriously. Amazing these klutzes who masterminded this
conspiracy did so many dumb things yet still pulled it off and have gotten
away with it all these years. They couldn't hire competent gunmen. They
didn't give them decent ammo. They put an army of shooters in Dealey Plaza
and then tried to blame one man. They planted a bullet at Parkland but put
it on the wrong gurney. They sent a guy to kill Oswald but he didn't get
there at the announced time of the transfer. They played a ridiculous game
of musical caskets at Bethesda instead of just having the pathologists
falsify the report. You claim they falsified the BOH photo but forgot to
put in an entrance wound. They forgot to alter the photo that shows a
bullet hole in the forehead/temple. All this and about a dozen other
things that I've forgotten about. You have to believe they made all these
mistakes and yet still got away with the crime of the century. It is truly
amazing the things you are willing to convince yourself of to fool
yourself into believing in a non-existent conspiracy.
You seem to have forgotten something else. That phony story I've toldPost by mainframetech
Sworn testimony says there was a
'large hole' there, and yet the photo shows what the original government
report told about, which was no large hole in the BOH. Whoever altered
the autopsy photos forgot to put in the bullet hole,
I suggested that facetiously before I read your comment in which youSworn testimony says there was a
'large hole' there, and yet the photo shows what the original government
report told about, which was no large hole in the BOH. Whoever altered
the autopsy photos forgot to put in the bullet hole,
stated that seriously. Amazing these klutzes who masterminded this
conspiracy did so many dumb things yet still pulled it off and have gotten
away with it all these years. They couldn't hire competent gunmen. They
didn't give them decent ammo. They put an army of shooters in Dealey Plaza
and then tried to blame one man. They planted a bullet at Parkland but put
it on the wrong gurney. They sent a guy to kill Oswald but he didn't get
there at the announced time of the transfer. They played a ridiculous game
of musical caskets at Bethesda instead of just having the pathologists
falsify the report. You claim they falsified the BOH photo but forgot to
put in an entrance wound. They forgot to alter the photo that shows a
bullet hole in the forehead/temple. All this and about a dozen other
things that I've forgotten about. You have to believe they made all these
mistakes and yet still got away with the crime of the century. It is truly
amazing the things you are willing to convince yourself of to fool
yourself into believing in a non-existent conspiracy.
you all about is supported by 40% of the US population, and some folks
have kept arguing for the phony story for 50 years and more. That means
the true story has less traction and is an uphill battle for belief of the
evidence. In effect, YOU are the reason that all the info you've listed
above is hard for some people to believe is because you go around arguing
for the tired old WCR.
Post by bigdog
drawings for the HSCA. They had the HSCA continue with the cover up but
forgot to tell them to conclude that there was only one shooter. What
morons.
The evidence that was left to look at would suggest only one 'lonePost by mainframetech
but they didn't
forget to tell Ida Dox to put it in to her drawing of the original photo.
Talk about hilarious! The drawing has a bullet hole, and the photo it
came from has nothing! LOL!
Oh, so they were still engineering the cover up when Ida Dox produced thebut they didn't
forget to tell Ida Dox to put it in to her drawing of the original photo.
Talk about hilarious! The drawing has a bullet hole, and the photo it
came from has nothing! LOL!
drawings for the HSCA. They had the HSCA continue with the cover up but
forgot to tell them to conclude that there was only one shooter. What
morons.
nut' killer, so what else could they conclude?
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
Post by bigdog
different questions.
Depends on the questions. It's very possible to ask differentPost by mainframetech
Yes it does so I ask you again. Why would you expect the same answers toPost by bigdog
Depends on the questions.Post by mainframetech
see the difference. And it's not due to different questions.
Why would you expect him to give the same answers to different questions?Post by bigdog
Both were interviews and the questions were different so naturally the
answers would be different.
Oh, get away! His 2 statements did not agree, and it is simple toPost by mainframetech
Go ahead, look for the bullet entry! When you can't find it, you'll
have to call Lipsey a liar.
And don't forget his mismatch in his HSCA statement and his video.
More lies.
There were no lies in either of the two statements. They are compatible.Go ahead, look for the bullet entry! When you can't find it, you'll
have to call Lipsey a liar.
And don't forget his mismatch in his HSCA statement and his video.
More lies.
Both were interviews and the questions were different so naturally the
answers would be different.
see the difference. And it's not due to different questions.
different questions.
questions to get to the same truth. Think it through.
Post by bigdog
caskets arrived at different times. You still can't.
I have done so, and you ignored the proof.Post by mainframetech
If I am wrong you should be able to point to a witness that said twoPost by bigdog
who weighed in described one casket.
WRONG!Post by mainframetech
there were 2 caskets and they arrived at different times, and you still
try to pretend that the evidence didn't happen! That's weird! You base
your imaginary story on guesses as to road conditions, and speed of
driving, when you have flat statements of what had transpired in reality.
And of course, you've left out the time spent at the main entrance while
the family got out of the ambulance.
There is no sworn testimony by anyone that two caskets arrived. EverybodyPost by bigdog
imaginary shipping casket to get to Bethesda 42 minute before the bronze
casket. For one it's only a 40 minute drive from Andrews to Bethesda and
that is if you don't have a police escort. The ambulance had a huge head
start on any shipping casket that would have been unloaded from AF1 after
all the cameras and witnesses had left the area. Even if the shipping
casket had been sent to Bethesda by teleportation, it could not have
arrived 42 minutes before the bronze casket.
I wonder about you. You get sworn testimony and corroboration thatPost by mainframetech
Now here's a final statement from Lipsey, since you're so determined to
"The ceremonial troop in Washington had been arranged to meet the body at
Andrews. Put it in a hearse. We had a decoy hearse because we knew there
was a mob waiting at Bethesda Naval Hospital. So we got in a couple of
these helicopters with our honor guard when they left and flew over to the
hospital to get there before they did. And when they came in, one of the
hearses went right up to the front door. All of the crowd, of course,
rushed over there. The one with the body in it went around to the back
where the morgue was and we unloaded it. We met them in the back and
unloaded it right there to avoid the news media and the crowd and
everything else."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
And while Lipsey said the casket went by road, there was no choice that
it went by helicopter because it got to the morgue 42 minutes BEFORE the
empty Bronze casket. Lipsey has clearly said there were 2 ambulances, one
was 'decoy', and one went to the back door with the body, and the other
went to the main entrance.
I've showed you the time line that would have made it impossible for yourNow here's a final statement from Lipsey, since you're so determined to
"The ceremonial troop in Washington had been arranged to meet the body at
Andrews. Put it in a hearse. We had a decoy hearse because we knew there
was a mob waiting at Bethesda Naval Hospital. So we got in a couple of
these helicopters with our honor guard when they left and flew over to the
hospital to get there before they did. And when they came in, one of the
hearses went right up to the front door. All of the crowd, of course,
rushed over there. The one with the body in it went around to the back
where the morgue was and we unloaded it. We met them in the back and
unloaded it right there to avoid the news media and the crowd and
everything else."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
And while Lipsey said the casket went by road, there was no choice that
it went by helicopter because it got to the morgue 42 minutes BEFORE the
empty Bronze casket. Lipsey has clearly said there were 2 ambulances, one
was 'decoy', and one went to the back door with the body, and the other
went to the main entrance.
imaginary shipping casket to get to Bethesda 42 minute before the bronze
casket. For one it's only a 40 minute drive from Andrews to Bethesda and
that is if you don't have a police escort. The ambulance had a huge head
start on any shipping casket that would have been unloaded from AF1 after
all the cameras and witnesses had left the area. Even if the shipping
casket had been sent to Bethesda by teleportation, it could not have
arrived 42 minutes before the bronze casket.
there were 2 caskets and they arrived at different times, and you still
try to pretend that the evidence didn't happen! That's weird! You base
your imaginary story on guesses as to road conditions, and speed of
driving, when you have flat statements of what had transpired in reality.
And of course, you've left out the time spent at the main entrance while
the family got out of the ambulance.
who weighed in described one casket.
caskets arrived at different times. You still can't.
Post by bigdog
and you still can't.
casket.
Oh, I see. You're playing another hopeful game. You hope that it's noPost by mainframetech
And you've been given an answer to that many times. Don't
begin to pretend that you never heard the answer.
You've never cited a single witness who said they saw two caskets arriveAnd you've been given an answer to that many times. Don't
begin to pretend that you never heard the answer.
and you still can't.
Post by mainframetech
Dennis David gave his
statement that he helped to bring in the SHIPPING casket, and then at
least a half hour later he saw the motorcade and ambulance that Jackie was
in with the Bronze casket arrive at the main entrance of the hospital.
The family came in and was taken by elevator to the 17th floor to the VIP
suite.
He saw the family dropped off at the front but didn't say he saw anotherDennis David gave his
statement that he helped to bring in the SHIPPING casket, and then at
least a half hour later he saw the motorcade and ambulance that Jackie was
in with the Bronze casket arrive at the main entrance of the hospital.
The family came in and was taken by elevator to the 17th floor to the VIP
suite.
casket.
proof unless a witness actually SAYS that he saw 2 caskets. Well, in the
normal course, that may not happen, but we have minds and therefore can
deduce from available info what occurred.
Fact, we know we saw the Bronze casket come down from AF1 and it went
into a hearse/ambulance with the family and started off for Bethesda. We
know that Dennis David was assigned the detail to help get the SHIPPING
casket into the morgue and place the body on the table #1. Sworn
testimony and documents prove that.
Then Dennis David says that he went out front to the lobby area after
a half hour, and he saw the hearse/ambulance arrive at the main entrance
and unload family from it. Mind you, the Shipping casket has been at the
morgue for at least a half hour. We know that was the ambulance with the
Bronze casket is in the ambulance at the main entrance because Jackie got
out of it. So now we have absolute proof that there were 2 caskets and
David saw them arrive. The ambulance at the main entrance went around the
back to the morgue, and there is your second arrival. If you try to
pretend that it was the same arrival as the SHIPING casket, than you've
lost touch will reality.
Post by bigdog
so.
WRONG! Don't need to have him say he saw two caskets. You'rePost by mainframetech
So you've got the same person seeing separate casket arrivals with
time in between.
Point to where he said he saw a second casket. Can't do it? Didn't thinkSo you've got the same person seeing separate casket arrivals with
time in between.
so.
making up a phony situation so you can then pick at it, but it won't help
you. What he stated that he saw was plenty good for deducing there were 2
separate caskets. And all your picking at it won't change it.
Post by bigdog
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=708#relPageId=3&tab=page
He does not say he saw a bronze casket come out of the Navy ambulance. He
saw one casket. Period. You have no one who saw two caskets.
OK. You're intentionally trying to make a mess out of simple evidence.Post by mainframetech
He brought in the SHIPPING casket at 6:35pm, and after
at least a half hour (by his own statement) he saw the ambulance with the
Bronze casket from AF1 stop at the main entrance.
Quote him saying he saw a bronze casket in addition to the shippingHe brought in the SHIPPING casket at 6:35pm, and after
at least a half hour (by his own statement) he saw the ambulance with the
Bronze casket from AF1 stop at the main entrance.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=708#relPageId=3&tab=page
He does not say he saw a bronze casket come out of the Navy ambulance. He
saw one casket. Period. You have no one who saw two caskets.
And your misunderstanding sounds more faked than real, so I'm tired of
this repetitive talk. You have all relevant info, so I'm outa here.
Chris
bigdog
2018-07-23 13:48:17 UTC
Post by mainframetech
bullet struck the BOH?
I could take a cue from you and pretend to see a bullet hole and thenPost by bigdog
better judgement about an entry wound in JFK's head than the original
pathologists who saw the body and the review panels who saw so many more
and better quality photos than I have.
LOL! Not willing to take the challenge when you're so sure that aPost by mainframetech
of what I saw is somehow more right?
I know it is.Post by bigdog
the findings of the 3 pathologists who had the body in front of them as
well as teams of highly qualified review panels who saw so many more
photos as well as x-rays.
WRONG as usual! So you think your amateur opinion of my flat statementPost by mainframetech
DON'T GIVE ME THAT COVERUP CRAP! The photo of the BOH that we have is
perfectly valid and clear for the purpose of seeing a bullet hole. But
there is none there. The photo shows the areas where the pathologists
said the bullet hole was located, but there's nothing there. And you
won't want to hear it, but the photo of the BOH is also very WRONG, since
there were over 39 eyewitnesses that there was a 'large hole' in the BOH,
right where the photo shows hair and no hole. Not only do the photos show
falseness in the reporting, but they prove they were altered as well. If
the medical examiners saw those photos, then there's no doubt they got the
wrong conclusions as to the cause of death. Naturally, the LNs reading
this will ignore completely the photographic proof just shown.
So you think your amateurish opinion based on looking at one photo trumpsDON'T GIVE ME THAT COVERUP CRAP! The photo of the BOH that we have is
perfectly valid and clear for the purpose of seeing a bullet hole. But
there is none there. The photo shows the areas where the pathologists
said the bullet hole was located, but there's nothing there. And you
won't want to hear it, but the photo of the BOH is also very WRONG, since
there were over 39 eyewitnesses that there was a 'large hole' in the BOH,
right where the photo shows hair and no hole. Not only do the photos show
falseness in the reporting, but they prove they were altered as well. If
the medical examiners saw those photos, then there's no doubt they got the
wrong conclusions as to the cause of death. Naturally, the LNs reading
this will ignore completely the photographic proof just shown.
the findings of the 3 pathologists who had the body in front of them as
well as teams of highly qualified review panels who saw so many more
photos as well as x-rays.
of what I saw is somehow more right?
Post by mainframetech
Then why didn't you take the
challenge when I first made it, to point out the bullet hole location
using the information from the pathologists as to the location of the
bullet hole?
I'm not dumb enough to think by looking at one photo that I can make aThen why didn't you take the
challenge when I first made it, to point out the bullet hole location
using the information from the pathologists as to the location of the
bullet hole?
better judgement about an entry wound in JFK's head than the original
pathologists who saw the body and the review panels who saw so many more
and better quality photos than I have.
bullet struck the BOH?
declare that it is obvious but why would I do that? People far more
qualified than me who have determined without a doubt that a bullet
entered the back of JFK's head. I believe the red spot is the hole in the
scalp and my guess is that it does not line up with the hole in the skull.
Why would I want to substitute my guess for the unanimous verdict of every
qualified person who has seen far more and better evidence than I have.
Post by mainframetech
Wow! No belief in your own WCR! More proof for
me that the WCR is a tired old phony and outmoded. So you try to lay off
the blame on the photo quality, which is just fine for the purpose of
seeing a bullet hole, and you've blamed your lack of courage to look for a
bullet hole on the fact that it's only one photo!
I don't have to blame anything. I know how to weigh evidence and I knowWow! No belief in your own WCR! More proof for
me that the WCR is a tired old phony and outmoded. So you try to lay off
the blame on the photo quality, which is just fine for the purpose of
seeing a bullet hole, and you've blamed your lack of courage to look for a
bullet hole on the fact that it's only one photo!
the opinions of those who are more qualified than I am and have seen far
more than I have far outweighs any opinion I have. It also outweighs any
opinion you have but since you are so bad at weighing evidence, you can't
figure that out.
Post by mainframetech
Failed excuses! Your
lack of courage means that there is NO bullet hole there in that photo,
and we both know the reason. There was no bullet hole in the BOH, and the
photo is a phony in either case. One more for the CT scorecard.
Whatever you may think about my lack of courage it doesn't erase theFailed excuses! Your
lack of courage means that there is NO bullet hole there in that photo,
and we both know the reason. There was no bullet hole in the BOH, and the
photo is a phony in either case. One more for the CT scorecard.
bullet hole that every qualified medical examiner determined was there and
was a wound of entry.
Post by mainframetech
If you were any good at weighing evidence, you would know the quality ofPost by bigdog
I don't need to see the bullet hole. Extremely qualified people who saw
many more and better photos as well as x-rays saw it. They don't need me
to confirm their findings.
Ah! Still blaming the photo quality.I don't need to see the bullet hole. Extremely qualified people who saw
many more and better photos as well as x-rays saw it. They don't need me
to confirm their findings.
the photos online aren't nearly as good as the originals which the review
panels have seen.
Post by mainframetech
But you haven't even looked at
the photo so how would you know the quality is bad? I think the quality
is just fine to see a bullet hole, if there was one there.
Who told you I hadn't looked at the photo? Oh, that's right. The same wayBut you haven't even looked at
the photo so how would you know the quality is bad? I think the quality
is just fine to see a bullet hole, if there was one there.
you have come by most of your knowledge. You just assumed it.
Post by mainframetech
hole right where the pathologists said there was supposed to be one.
Who said no one can see a bullet hole. There is a red spot in the photoPost by bigdog
that of the original pathology team and all the review panels. Is there no
end to your silliness. Apparently not.
Well, you might want to try and explain why no one can se a bulletPost by mainframetech
I never
heard you comment after looking, or did you avoid looking too so you could
have 'plausible denial'? It doesn't take experts to see that there is no
bullet hole in the BOH of that photo, and one photo is all that's needed
to tell that there's no bullet hole.
Amazing how you think by looking at one photo your opinion should trumpI never
heard you comment after looking, or did you avoid looking too so you could
have 'plausible denial'? It doesn't take experts to see that there is no
bullet hole in the BOH of that photo, and one photo is all that's needed
to tell that there's no bullet hole.
that of the original pathology team and all the review panels. Is there no
end to your silliness. Apparently not.
hole right where the pathologists said there was supposed to be one.
and I and many others believe that is the bullet hole. I can't be certain
that is the bullet hole because I'm not qualified to make such judgements
and I have seen only that one photo. People who are qualified and have
seen so much more have determined there is an entry wound in the BOH and
that is good enough for me. Obviously nothing would be good enough for
you.
Post by mainframetech
But
of course, you don't want to get too deep into this, because there is only
one final answer.
Yes there is. Oswald did it.But
of course, you don't want to get too deep into this, because there is only
one final answer.
How would you know?
It's fine for imagining you see bullet holes.
Post by mainframetech
One photo of the right area is all that is
needed to determine if there is a bullet hole there or not.
There is a bullet hole in the BOH and no bullet hole in the forehead.One photo of the right area is all that is
needed to determine if there is a bullet hole there or not.
That's what all the knowledgeable people have said. Then we have your
opinion.
Post by mainframetech
eyewitnesses all corroborated each other that the 'large hole' was there.
There was a large hole that extended into occipital bone but was chieflyPost by bigdog
claims there was a blowout in the BOH. I know better.
Ah! That means that you have some explanation for why over 39Post by mainframetech
As well, you haven't found any explanation for there to be hair all
over the BOH, when over 39 eyewitnesses said they saw a 'large hole'
there. Many of them were medically trained and knew what they were
describing.
You are the one who needs to explain that conundrum. You are the one whoAs well, you haven't found any explanation for there to be hair all
over the BOH, when over 39 eyewitnesses said they saw a 'large hole'
there. Many of them were medically trained and knew what they were
describing.
claims there was a blowout in the BOH. I know better.
eyewitnesses all corroborated each other that the 'large hole' was there.
parietal.
Post by mainframetech
given by the pathologists for locations are all within the confines of the
photo in question, so why would the bullet hole not be there? The photo
quality is very good so that's not an excuse. I think you've just proved
that there is no bullet hole in the BOH.
You can carry on all you want. Your opinion doesn't stack up against whatPost by bigdog
isn't, it is elsewhere. I'm not going to dismiss the unanimous opinion of
every medical examiner who saw so much more evidence than I have just
because I don't see an obvious bullet hole. Why would you do so?
"obvious bullet hole"? Then why can't it be seen? The variationsPost by mainframetech
I'm having a hard time believing that you fell for that, since it was
"Humes’ comments regarding the supposed higher wound during his
HSCA testimony are particularly telling. After several failed attempts to
get both Humes and Boswell to agree the inshoot was high, the
HSCA’s Charles Petty, MD had another go with Humes, this time
concerning the possibility a red spot in the autopsy photos visible at the
top of JFK’s otherwise pristine rear scalp was the inshoot. Gazing
together at the photograph showing the all but unblemished rear of
“I don’t know what that [red spot] is. No. 1, I can assure
you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no
defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don’t
know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don’t, I
just don’t know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance.”
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm
As I said, I don't know whether that red spot is the bullet hole. If itI'm having a hard time believing that you fell for that, since it was
"Humes’ comments regarding the supposed higher wound during his
HSCA testimony are particularly telling. After several failed attempts to
get both Humes and Boswell to agree the inshoot was high, the
HSCA’s Charles Petty, MD had another go with Humes, this time
concerning the possibility a red spot in the autopsy photos visible at the
top of JFK’s otherwise pristine rear scalp was the inshoot. Gazing
together at the photograph showing the all but unblemished rear of
“I don’t know what that [red spot] is. No. 1, I can assure
you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no
defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don’t
know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don’t, I
just don’t know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance.”
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm
isn't, it is elsewhere. I'm not going to dismiss the unanimous opinion of
every medical examiner who saw so much more evidence than I have just
because I don't see an obvious bullet hole. Why would you do so?
given by the pathologists for locations are all within the confines of the
photo in question, so why would the bullet hole not be there? The photo
quality is very good so that's not an excuse. I think you've just proved
that there is no bullet hole in the BOH.
knowledgeable people have concluded. You are not competent to render such
judgements and you have seen a fraction of the evidence.
Post by mainframetech
simple bullet hole.
It probably does but I can't be certain that red spot is the bullet holePost by bigdog
the review panels who saw so much more. Absurd.
What's absurd is your attempt to pretend that the photo can't show aPost by mainframetech
expert to determine if there was a bullet-sized hole in the BOH. Anyone
can see plainly that there is no such thing.
So you think by looking at one photo you can make a better judgement thanPost by bigdog
What I do know is that at scalp had been pulled away from the
skull and if it was pulled back up for that picture, it may not have lined
up with the hole in the scalp making the hole harder to see. It's also
possible the entry wound is hidden under the hair. In any case, it would
be very silly of me to think with my complete lack of training in forensic
medicine that I could look at one photo and make a better determination
than the three pathologists who conducted the autopsy and teams of the
best medical examiners in the country who got to see far more and better
quality photos and x-rays than I have. What kind of moron would do
something like that?
The moron would be the one that thought that it would have to take anWhat I do know is that at scalp had been pulled away from the
skull and if it was pulled back up for that picture, it may not have lined
up with the hole in the scalp making the hole harder to see. It's also
possible the entry wound is hidden under the hair. In any case, it would
be very silly of me to think with my complete lack of training in forensic
medicine that I could look at one photo and make a better determination
than the three pathologists who conducted the autopsy and teams of the
best medical examiners in the country who got to see far more and better
quality photos and x-rays than I have. What kind of moron would do
something like that?
expert to determine if there was a bullet-sized hole in the BOH. Anyone
can see plainly that there is no such thing.
the review panels who saw so much more. Absurd.
simple bullet hole.
the review panels saw or if the bullet hole showed up elsewhere in the
other photos they looked at. It is possible the entry wound could be
covered by JFK's hair. That's why I'm not dumb enough to think I can look
at one photo and think I can make a better determination than the review
panels. Apparently that isn't a problem for you.
Post by mainframetech
This is not rocket science. It's a simple hole in
the BOH in a photo. So where is it?
Where the review panels said. In the BOH.This is not rocket science. It's a simple hole in
the BOH in a photo. So where is it?
Post by mainframetech
Sherlock! If the photo was legitimate, then there is NO hole in the BOH.
But if the photo is altered, then we're dealing with altered evidence,
which means the possibility that the panels were shown the phony photos so
that they would come to the wrong conclusion as to the cause of death. A
bullet from above and behind.
Then there is the correct explanation. You just don't know what you arePost by bigdog
the BOH. Brilliant work, Sherlock. Did the people who altered the photo to
hide the big hole forget to alter it to show a little hole?
Sounds like you figured it out all by yourself! Excellent workPost by mainframetech
which you tend to do. I've pointed out that the photo of the BOH was
altered, and there is no doubt about it.
Oh, so you are using a altered photo to prove there was no entry wound inPost by bigdog
You are making a big deal about not being able to see a small entry wound
in the BOH. Apparently it doesn't bother you that the large blowout in the
BOH that you claim was there doesn't show up in that photo either. Got any
explanation for that?
Of course! I've addressed that recently. You probably missed it,You are making a big deal about not being able to see a small entry wound
in the BOH. Apparently it doesn't bother you that the large blowout in the
BOH that you claim was there doesn't show up in that photo either. Got any
explanation for that?
which you tend to do. I've pointed out that the photo of the BOH was
altered, and there is no doubt about it.
the BOH. Brilliant work, Sherlock. Did the people who altered the photo to
hide the big hole forget to alter it to show a little hole?
Sherlock! If the photo was legitimate, then there is NO hole in the BOH.
But if the photo is altered, then we're dealing with altered evidence,
which means the possibility that the panels were shown the phony photos so
that they would come to the wrong conclusion as to the cause of death. A
bullet from above and behind.
talking about.
Post by mainframetech
you all about is supported by 40% of the US population,
Since most people who don't know the most rudimentary facts of thePost by bigdog
stated that seriously. Amazing these klutzes who masterminded this
conspiracy did so many dumb things yet still pulled it off and have gotten
away with it all these years. They couldn't hire competent gunmen. They
didn't give them decent ammo. They put an army of shooters in Dealey Plaza
and then tried to blame one man. They planted a bullet at Parkland but put
it on the wrong gurney. They sent a guy to kill Oswald but he didn't get
there at the announced time of the transfer. They played a ridiculous game
of musical caskets at Bethesda instead of just having the pathologists
falsify the report. You claim they falsified the BOH photo but forgot to
put in an entrance wound. They forgot to alter the photo that shows a
bullet hole in the forehead/temple. All this and about a dozen other
things that I've forgotten about. You have to believe they made all these
mistakes and yet still got away with the crime of the century. It is truly
amazing the things you are willing to convince yourself of to fool
yourself into believing in a non-existent conspiracy.
You seem to have forgotten something else. That phony story I've toldPost by mainframetech
Sworn testimony says there was a
'large hole' there, and yet the photo shows what the original government
report told about, which was no large hole in the BOH. Whoever altered
the autopsy photos forgot to put in the bullet hole,
I suggested that facetiously before I read your comment in which youSworn testimony says there was a
'large hole' there, and yet the photo shows what the original government
report told about, which was no large hole in the BOH. Whoever altered
the autopsy photos forgot to put in the bullet hole,
stated that seriously. Amazing these klutzes who masterminded this
conspiracy did so many dumb things yet still pulled it off and have gotten
away with it all these years. They couldn't hire competent gunmen. They
didn't give them decent ammo. They put an army of shooters in Dealey Plaza
and then tried to blame one man. They planted a bullet at Parkland but put
it on the wrong gurney. They sent a guy to kill Oswald but he didn't get
there at the announced time of the transfer. They played a ridiculous game
of musical caskets at Bethesda instead of just having the pathologists
falsify the report. You claim they falsified the BOH photo but forgot to
put in an entrance wound. They forgot to alter the photo that shows a
bullet hole in the forehead/temple. All this and about a dozen other
things that I've forgotten about. You have to believe they made all these
mistakes and yet still got away with the crime of the century. It is truly
amazing the things you are willing to convince yourself of to fool
yourself into believing in a non-existent conspiracy.
you all about is supported by 40% of the US population,
assassination that is pretty much irrelevant.
Post by mainframetech
and some folks
have kept arguing for the phony story for 50 years and more. That means
the true story has less traction and is an uphill battle for belief of the
evidence. In effect, YOU are the reason that all the info you've listed
above is hard for some people to believe is because you go around arguing
for the tired old WCR.
99.999999% of the people in this country aren't even aware of what Iand some folks
have kept arguing for the phony story for 50 years and more. That means
the true story has less traction and is an uphill battle for belief of the
evidence. In effect, YOU are the reason that all the info you've listed
above is hard for some people to believe is because you go around arguing
for the tired old WCR.
believe about the assassination. My arguments haven't moved the needle of
public opinion.
Post by mainframetech
nut' killer, so what else could they conclude?
That there was no conspiracy which would have been the correct answer.Post by bigdog
drawings for the HSCA. They had the HSCA continue with the cover up but
forgot to tell them to conclude that there was only one shooter. What
morons.
The evidence that was left to look at would suggest only one 'lonePost by mainframetech
but they didn't
forget to tell Ida Dox to put it in to her drawing of the original photo.
Talk about hilarious! The drawing has a bullet hole, and the photo it
came from has nothing! LOL!
Oh, so they were still engineering the cover up when Ida Dox produced thebut they didn't
forget to tell Ida Dox to put it in to her drawing of the original photo.
Talk about hilarious! The drawing has a bullet hole, and the photo it
came from has nothing! LOL!
drawings for the HSCA. They had the HSCA continue with the cover up but
forgot to tell them to conclude that there was only one shooter. What
morons.
nut' killer, so what else could they conclude?
Post by mainframetech
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
questions to get to the same truth. Think it through.
Obviously you haven't or you wouldn't have made a such a silly argument.http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
Post by bigdog
different questions.
Depends on the questions. It's very possible to ask differentPost by mainframetech
Yes it does so I ask you again. Why would you expect the same answers toPost by bigdog
Depends on the questions.Post by mainframetech
see the difference. And it's not due to different questions.
Why would you expect him to give the same answers to different questions?Post by bigdog
Both were interviews and the questions were different so naturally the
answers would be different.
Oh, get away! His 2 statements did not agree, and it is simple toPost by mainframetech
Go ahead, look for the bullet entry! When you can't find it, you'll
have to call Lipsey a liar.
And don't forget his mismatch in his HSCA statement and his video.
More lies.
There were no lies in either of the two statements. They are compatible.Go ahead, look for the bullet entry! When you can't find it, you'll
have to call Lipsey a liar.
And don't forget his mismatch in his HSCA statement and his video.
More lies.
Both were interviews and the questions were different so naturally the
answers would be different.
see the difference. And it's not due to different questions.
different questions.
questions to get to the same truth. Think it through.
Post by mainframetech
No you haven't. All the witnesses you cited only said they saw one casketPost by bigdog
caskets arrived at different times. You still can't.
I have done so, and you ignored the proof.Post by mainframetech
If I am wrong you should be able to point to a witness that said twoPost by bigdog
who weighed in described one casket.
WRONG!Post by mainframetech
there were 2 caskets and they arrived at different times, and you still
try to pretend that the evidence didn't happen! That's weird! You base
your imaginary story on guesses as to road conditions, and speed of
driving, when you have flat statements of what had transpired in reality.
And of course, you've left out the time spent at the main entrance while
the family got out of the ambulance.
There is no sworn testimony by anyone that two caskets arrived. EverybodyPost by bigdog
imaginary shipping casket to get to Bethesda 42 minute before the bronze
casket. For one it's only a 40 minute drive from Andrews to Bethesda and
that is if you don't have a police escort. The ambulance had a huge head
start on any shipping casket that would have been unloaded from AF1 after
all the cameras and witnesses had left the area. Even if the shipping
casket had been sent to Bethesda by teleportation, it could not have
arrived 42 minutes before the bronze casket.
I wonder about you. You get sworn testimony and corroboration thatPost by mainframetech
Now here's a final statement from Lipsey, since you're so determined to
"The ceremonial troop in Washington had been arranged to meet the body at
Andrews. Put it in a hearse. We had a decoy hearse because we knew there
was a mob waiting at Bethesda Naval Hospital. So we got in a couple of
these helicopters with our honor guard when they left and flew over to the
hospital to get there before they did. And when they came in, one of the
hearses went right up to the front door. All of the crowd, of course,
rushed over there. The one with the body in it went around to the back
where the morgue was and we unloaded it. We met them in the back and
unloaded it right there to avoid the news media and the crowd and
everything else."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
And while Lipsey said the casket went by road, there was no choice that
it went by helicopter because it got to the morgue 42 minutes BEFORE the
empty Bronze casket. Lipsey has clearly said there were 2 ambulances, one
was 'decoy', and one went to the back door with the body, and the other
went to the main entrance.
I've showed you the time line that would have made it impossible for yourNow here's a final statement from Lipsey, since you're so determined to
"The ceremonial troop in Washington had been arranged to meet the body at
Andrews. Put it in a hearse. We had a decoy hearse because we knew there
was a mob waiting at Bethesda Naval Hospital. So we got in a couple of
these helicopters with our honor guard when they left and flew over to the
hospital to get there before they did. And when they came in, one of the
hearses went right up to the front door. All of the crowd, of course,
rushed over there. The one with the body in it went around to the back
where the morgue was and we unloaded it. We met them in the back and
unloaded it right there to avoid the news media and the crowd and
everything else."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
And while Lipsey said the casket went by road, there was no choice that
it went by helicopter because it got to the morgue 42 minutes BEFORE the
empty Bronze casket. Lipsey has clearly said there were 2 ambulances, one
was 'decoy', and one went to the back door with the body, and the other
went to the main entrance.
imaginary shipping casket to get to Bethesda 42 minute before the bronze
casket. For one it's only a 40 minute drive from Andrews to Bethesda and
that is if you don't have a police escort. The ambulance had a huge head
start on any shipping casket that would have been unloaded from AF1 after
all the cameras and witnesses had left the area. Even if the shipping
casket had been sent to Bethesda by teleportation, it could not have
arrived 42 minutes before the bronze casket.
there were 2 caskets and they arrived at different times, and you still
try to pretend that the evidence didn't happen! That's weird! You base
your imaginary story on guesses as to road conditions, and speed of
driving, when you have flat statements of what had transpired in reality.
And of course, you've left out the time spent at the main entrance while
the family got out of the ambulance.
who weighed in described one casket.
caskets arrived at different times. You still can't.
arrive. Name ONE person who said he saw two.
Post by mainframetech
proof unless a witness actually SAYS that he saw 2 caskets.
Yes, that is the point. If everybody saw only one casket, even if theyPost by bigdog
and you still can't.
casket.
Oh, I see. You're playing another hopeful game. You hope that it's noPost by mainframetech
And you've been given an answer to that many times. Don't
begin to pretend that you never heard the answer.
You've never cited a single witness who said they saw two caskets arriveAnd you've been given an answer to that many times. Don't
begin to pretend that you never heard the answer.
and you still can't.
Post by mainframetech
Dennis David gave his
statement that he helped to bring in the SHIPPING casket, and then at
least a half hour later he saw the motorcade and ambulance that Jackie was
in with the Bronze casket arrive at the main entrance of the hospital.
The family came in and was taken by elevator to the 17th floor to the VIP
suite.
He saw the family dropped off at the front but didn't say he saw anotherDennis David gave his
statement that he helped to bring in the SHIPPING casket, and then at
least a half hour later he saw the motorcade and ambulance that Jackie was
in with the Bronze casket arrive at the main entrance of the hospital.
The family came in and was taken by elevator to the 17th floor to the VIP
suite.
casket.
proof unless a witness actually SAYS that he saw 2 caskets.
disagreed as to the type of casket and the time it arrived, there is no
proof that more than one casket arrived. The reason that is true is that
after 3 decades, witnesses often get details wrong, especially when
recounting events that happened 3 decades earlier. You treat those 3
decade old memories as if they are absolute proof. That is because you are
really, really bad at weighing evidence. You can't figure out what
evidence is reliable and what is dubious.
Post by mainframetech
Well, in the
normal course, that may not happen, but we have minds and therefore can
deduce from available info what occurred.
Your deductions really suck.Well, in the
normal course, that may not happen, but we have minds and therefore can
deduce from available info what occurred.
Post by mainframetech
Fact, we know we saw the Bronze casket come down from AF1 and it went
into a hearse/ambulance with the family and started off for Bethesda.
Yes, we have a film record of that.Fact, we know we saw the Bronze casket come down from AF1 and it went
into a hearse/ambulance with the family and started off for Bethesda.
Post by mainframetech
We
know that Dennis David was assigned the detail to help get the SHIPPING
casket into the morgue and place the body on the table #1. Sworn
testimony and documents prove that.
We don't know that the casket Dennis David helped carry into the morgueWe
know that Dennis David was assigned the detail to help get the SHIPPING
casket into the morgue and place the body on the table #1. Sworn
testimony and documents prove that.
was a shipping casket because he told us that 3 decades later and could
have been wrong about that. You are on other hand treat that 3 decade old
memory as if it were a proven fact.
Post by mainframetech
Then Dennis David says that he went out front to the lobby area after
a half hour, and he saw the hearse/ambulance arrive at the main entrance
and unload family from it. Mind you, the Shipping casket has been at the
morgue for at least a half hour. We know that was the ambulance with the
Bronze casket is in the ambulance at the main entrance because Jackie got
out of it. So now we have absolute proof that there were 2 caskets and
David saw them arrive.
This it the whole fallacy of your approach. You treat someone's 3 decadeThen Dennis David says that he went out front to the lobby area after
a half hour, and he saw the hearse/ambulance arrive at the main entrance
and unload family from it. Mind you, the Shipping casket has been at the
morgue for at least a half hour. We know that was the ambulance with the
Bronze casket is in the ambulance at the main entrance because Jackie got
out of it. So now we have absolute proof that there were 2 caskets and
David saw them arrive.
old memory as if it is absolute proof. You refuse to consider that a
witness could be wrong about the type of casket he saw arrive with JFK's
body.
Post by mainframetech
The ambulance at the main entrance went around the
back to the morgue, and there is your second arrival.
You have not established that it was a separate casket. We have otherThe ambulance at the main entrance went around the
back to the morgue, and there is your second arrival.
witnesses, specifically Sibert and O'Neill who said JFK's body was in the
bronze casket when it arrived at the morgue. To explain away that
inconvenient fact, you present an even more ridiculous scenario that they
put JFK's body back into the bronze casket and sent it back out to be
redelivered to the loading dock. Try telling that to 100 people and I
would bet at least 99 would bust a gut laughing at you.
Post by mainframetech
If you try to
pretend that it was the same arrival as the SHIPING casket, than you've
lost touch will reality.
You're one to talk.If you try to
pretend that it was the same arrival as the SHIPING casket, than you've
lost touch will reality.
Post by mainframetech
Of course you don't. You can just assume he did.Post by bigdog
so.
WRONG! Don't need to have him say he saw two caskets.Post by mainframetech
So you've got the same person seeing separate casket arrivals with
time in between.
Point to where he said he saw a second casket. Can't do it? Didn't thinkSo you've got the same person seeing separate casket arrivals with
time in between.
so.
Post by mainframetech
You're
making up a phony situation so you can then pick at it, but it won't help
you. What he stated that he saw was plenty good for deducing there were 2
separate caskets. And all your picking at it won't change it.
You think this whole tale of the body being switched back and forth fromYou're
making up a phony situation so you can then pick at it, but it won't help
you. What he stated that he saw was plenty good for deducing there were 2
separate caskets. And all your picking at it won't change it.
one casket to another and then making multiple arrivals at the loading
dock makes more sense than some witnesses simply got some details wrong in
trying to remember something that happened 3 decades earlier. How many
events from 30 years ago could you perfectly remember in every detail?
Post by mainframetech
And your misunderstanding sounds more faked than real, so I'm tired of
this repetitive talk. You have all relevant info, so I'm outa here.
Since you can't cite even one witness who said he saw two differentPost by bigdog
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=708#relPageId=3&tab=page
He does not say he saw a bronze casket come out of the Navy ambulance. He
saw one casket. Period. You have no one who saw two caskets.
OK. You're intentionally trying to make a mess out of simple evidence.Post by mainframetech
He brought in the SHIPPING casket at 6:35pm, and after
at least a half hour (by his own statement) he saw the ambulance with the
Bronze casket from AF1 stop at the main entrance.
Quote him saying he saw a bronze casket in addition to the shippingHe brought in the SHIPPING casket at 6:35pm, and after
at least a half hour (by his own statement) he saw the ambulance with the
Bronze casket from AF1 stop at the main entrance.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=708#relPageId=3&tab=page
He does not say he saw a bronze casket come out of the Navy ambulance. He
saw one casket. Period. You have no one who saw two caskets.
And your misunderstanding sounds more faked than real, so I'm tired of
this repetitive talk. You have all relevant info, so I'm outa here.
caskets arrive, that is probably your best move.
mainframetech
2018-07-25 01:45:50 UTC
Post by bigdog
declare that it is obvious but why would I do that? People far more
qualified than me who have determined without a doubt that a bullet
entered the back of JFK's head. I believe the red spot is the hole in the
scalp and my guess is that it does not line up with the hole in the skull.
WRONG! Humes, who was certainly far more qualified than you, said thePost by mainframetech
bullet struck the BOH?
I could take a cue from you and pretend to see a bullet hole and thenPost by bigdog
better judgement about an entry wound in JFK's head than the original
pathologists who saw the body and the review panels who saw so many more
and better quality photos than I have.
LOL! Not willing to take the challenge when you're so sure that aPost by mainframetech
of what I saw is somehow more right?
I know it is.Post by bigdog
the findings of the 3 pathologists who had the body in front of them as
well as teams of highly qualified review panels who saw so many more
photos as well as x-rays.
WRONG as usual! So you think your amateur opinion of my flat statementPost by mainframetech
DON'T GIVE ME THAT COVERUP CRAP! The photo of the BOH that we have is
perfectly valid and clear for the purpose of seeing a bullet hole. But
there is none there. The photo shows the areas where the pathologists
said the bullet hole was located, but there's nothing there. And you
won't want to hear it, but the photo of the BOH is also very WRONG, since
there were over 39 eyewitnesses that there was a 'large hole' in the BOH,
right where the photo shows hair and no hole. Not only do the photos show
falseness in the reporting, but they prove they were altered as well. If
the medical examiners saw those photos, then there's no doubt they got the
wrong conclusions as to the cause of death. Naturally, the LNs reading
this will ignore completely the photographic proof just shown.
So you think your amateurish opinion based on looking at one photo trumpsDON'T GIVE ME THAT COVERUP CRAP! The photo of the BOH that we have is
perfectly valid and clear for the purpose of seeing a bullet hole. But
there is none there. The photo shows the areas where the pathologists
said the bullet hole was located, but there's nothing there. And you
won't want to hear it, but the photo of the BOH is also very WRONG, since
there were over 39 eyewitnesses that there was a 'large hole' in the BOH,
right where the photo shows hair and no hole. Not only do the photos show
falseness in the reporting, but they prove they were altered as well. If
the medical examiners saw those photos, then there's no doubt they got the
wrong conclusions as to the cause of death. Naturally, the LNs reading
this will ignore completely the photographic proof just shown.
the findings of the 3 pathologists who had the body in front of them as
well as teams of highly qualified review panels who saw so many more
photos as well as x-rays.
of what I saw is somehow more right?
Post by mainframetech
Then why didn't you take the
challenge when I first made it, to point out the bullet hole location
using the information from the pathologists as to the location of the
bullet hole?
I'm not dumb enough to think by looking at one photo that I can make aThen why didn't you take the
challenge when I first made it, to point out the bullet hole location
using the information from the pathologists as to the location of the
bullet hole?
better judgement about an entry wound in JFK's head than the original
pathologists who saw the body and the review panels who saw so many more
and better quality photos than I have.
bullet struck the BOH?
declare that it is obvious but why would I do that? People far more
qualified than me who have determined without a doubt that a bullet
entered the back of JFK's head. I believe the red spot is the hole in the
scalp and my guess is that it does not line up with the hole in the skull.
red spot was "nothing", and that it did NOT have an equal hole in the
skull underneath. He certain (as an expert more than you) would have
thought of the mismatch of scalp and skull and considered it, and he saw
NO matching hole in the skull. BTWE, if that photo were of them pulling
the scalp forward to make it look like normal, it did indeed look like
there was NO extra scalp to pull past the bullet hole if there had been
one there.
Post by bigdog
Why would I want to substitute my guess for the unanimous verdict of every
qualified person who has seen far more and better evidence than I have.
It has to do with telling the truth. If they were lazy or were notWhy would I want to substitute my guess for the unanimous verdict of every
qualified person who has seen far more and better evidence than I have.
given enough information, or whatever, so that they made a wrong
conclusion, it's still your job to tell the truth when you see it, or know
about it.
Post by bigdog
the opinions of those who are more qualified than I am and have seen far
more than I have far outweighs any opinion I have. It also outweighs any
opinion you have but since you are so bad at weighing evidence, you can't
figure that out.
Ah, that's your excuse! Blame it on the 'experts'. In actuality,Post by mainframetech
Wow! No belief in your own WCR! More proof for
me that the WCR is a tired old phony and outmoded. So you try to lay off
the blame on the photo quality, which is just fine for the purpose of
seeing a bullet hole, and you've blamed your lack of courage to look for a
bullet hole on the fact that it's only one photo!
I don't have to blame anything. I know how to weigh evidence and I knowWow! No belief in your own WCR! More proof for
me that the WCR is a tired old phony and outmoded. So you try to lay off
the blame on the photo quality, which is just fine for the purpose of
seeing a bullet hole, and you've blamed your lack of courage to look for a
bullet hole on the fact that it's only one photo!
the opinions of those who are more qualified than I am and have seen far
more than I have far outweighs any opinion I have. It also outweighs any
opinion you have but since you are so bad at weighing evidence, you can't
figure that out.
given that I've told you all that I have seen, you have at your fingertips
all the evidence you need that exceeds the 'experts' and what they knew,
or were allowed to know. So any decision you made is with all the info
that the experts did NOT have! What was seen in the body with organs
removed, and much else. So the decision to use that info or to throw it
away to save the WCR is completely up to you.
Post by bigdog
bullet hole that every qualified medical examiner determined was there and
was a wound of entry.
Oh? Well, where is it? The photo was just fine quality to show aPost by mainframetech
Failed excuses! Your
lack of courage means that there is NO bullet hole there in that photo,
and we both know the reason. There was no bullet hole in the BOH, and the
photo is a phony in either case. One more for the CT scorecard.
Whatever you may think about my lack of courage it doesn't erase theFailed excuses! Your
lack of courage means that there is NO bullet hole there in that photo,
and we both know the reason. There was no bullet hole in the BOH, and the
photo is a phony in either case. One more for the CT scorecard.
bullet hole that every qualified medical examiner determined was there and
was a wound of entry.
bullet hole. And the area described by the pathologists was there in the
photo. But...no bullet hole!
Post by bigdog
the photos online aren't nearly as good as the originals which the review
panels have seen.
I know that the photo in question of the BIOH was perfectly fie forPost by mainframetech
If you were any good at weighing evidence, you would know the quality ofPost by bigdog
I don't need to see the bullet hole. Extremely qualified people who saw
many more and better photos as well as x-rays saw it. They don't need me
to confirm their findings.
Ah! Still blaming the photo quality.I don't need to see the bullet hole. Extremely qualified people who saw
many more and better photos as well as x-rays saw it. They don't need me
to confirm their findings.
the photos online aren't nearly as good as the originals which the review
panels have seen.
showing a bullet hole, had there been one there. As L'il Abner used to
say, 'any fool can plainly see' that if it was there, we could all see it.
Post by bigdog
you have come by most of your knowledge. You just assumed it.
I'm not hearing a positive statement so I'm still assuming that youPost by mainframetech
But you haven't even looked at
the photo so how would you know the quality is bad? I think the quality
is just fine to see a bullet hole, if there was one there.
Who told you I hadn't looked at the photo? Oh, that's right. The same wayBut you haven't even looked at
the photo so how would you know the quality is bad? I think the quality
is just fine to see a bullet hole, if there was one there.
you have come by most of your knowledge. You just assumed it.
didn't dare look.
Post by bigdog
and I and many others believe that is the bullet hole. I can't be certain
that is the bullet hole because I'm not qualified to make such judgements
and I have seen only that one photo. People who are qualified and have
seen so much more have determined there is an entry wound in the BOH and
that is good enough for me. Obviously nothing would be good enough for
you.
The answer to the 'red spot' is simple. Humes, an expert far abovePost by mainframetech
hole right where the pathologists said there was supposed to be one.
Who said no one can see a bullet hole. There is a red spot in the photoPost by bigdog
that of the original pathology team and all the review panels. Is there no
end to your silliness. Apparently not.
Well, you might want to try and explain why no one can see a bulletPost by mainframetech
I never
heard you comment after looking, or did you avoid looking too so you could
have 'plausible denial'? It doesn't take experts to see that there is no
bullet hole in the BOH of that photo, and one photo is all that's needed
to tell that there's no bullet hole.
Amazing how you think by looking at one photo your opinion should trumpI never
heard you comment after looking, or did you avoid looking too so you could
have 'plausible denial'? It doesn't take experts to see that there is no
bullet hole in the BOH of that photo, and one photo is all that's needed
to tell that there's no bullet hole.
that of the original pathology team and all the review panels. Is there no
end to your silliness. Apparently not.
hole right where the pathologists said there was supposed to be one.
and I and many others believe that is the bullet hole. I can't be certain
that is the bullet hole because I'm not qualified to make such judgements
and I have seen only that one photo. People who are qualified and have
seen so much more have determined there is an entry wound in the BOH and
that is good enough for me. Obviously nothing would be good enough for
you.
your level of knowledge, has said the 'red spot' was NOTHING and he also
said that there was no matching hole in the skull beneath the scalp. So
we've done away with the 'red spot'. On to your next excuse.
Post by bigdog
How would you know?
It's fine for imagining you see bullet holes.
That's what all the knowledgeable people have said. Then we have your
opinion.
WRONG! NO expert said that there is no bullet hole in the forehead.Post by mainframetech
But
of course, you don't want to get too deep into this, because there is only
one final answer.
Yes there is. Oswald did it.But
of course, you don't want to get too deep into this, because there is only
one final answer.
How would you know?
It's fine for imagining you see bullet holes.
Post by mainframetech
One photo of the right area is all that is
needed to determine if there is a bullet hole there or not.
There is a bullet hole in the BOH and no bullet hole in the forehead.One photo of the right area is all that is
needed to determine if there is a bullet hole there or not.
That's what all the knowledgeable people have said. Then we have your
opinion.
Post by bigdog
parietal.
Nope, they said the 'large hole' was in the BOH, not the side orPost by mainframetech
eyewitnesses all corroborated each other that the 'large hole' was there.
There was a large hole that extended into occipital bone but was chieflyPost by bigdog
claims there was a blowout in the BOH. I know better.
Ah! That means that you have some explanation for why over 39Post by mainframetech
As well, you haven't found any explanation for there to be hair all
over the BOH, when over 39 eyewitnesses said they saw a 'large hole'
there. Many of them were medically trained and knew what they were
describing.
You are the one who needs to explain that conundrum. You are the one whoAs well, you haven't found any explanation for there to be hair all
over the BOH, when over 39 eyewitnesses said they saw a 'large hole'
there. Many of them were medically trained and knew what they were
describing.
claims there was a blowout in the BOH. I know better.
eyewitnesses all corroborated each other that the 'large hole' was there.
parietal.
elsewhere.
Post by bigdog
knowledgeable people have concluded. You are not competent to render such
judgements and you have seen a fraction of the evidence.
So even though it's obvious that you can't see any bullet hole in thePost by mainframetech
given by the pathologists for locations are all within the confines of the
photo in question, so why would the bullet hole not be there? The photo
quality is very good so that's not an excuse. I think you've just proved
that there is no bullet hole in the BOH.
You can carry on all you want. Your opinion doesn't stack up against whatPost by bigdog
isn't, it is elsewhere. I'm not going to dismiss the unanimous opinion of
every medical examiner who saw so much more evidence than I have just
because I don't see an obvious bullet hole. Why would you do so?
"obvious bullet hole"? Then why can't it be seen? The variationsPost by mainframetech
I'm having a hard time believing that you fell for that, since it was
"Humes’ comments regarding the supposed higher wound during his
HSCA testimony are particularly telling. After several failed attempts to
get both Humes and Boswell to agree the inshoot was high, the
HSCA’s Charles Petty, MD had another go with Humes, this time
concerning the possibility a red spot in the autopsy photos visible at the
top of JFK’s otherwise pristine rear scalp was the inshoot. Gazing
together at the photograph showing the all but unblemished rear of
“I don’t know what that [red spot] is. No. 1, I can assure
you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no
defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don’t
know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don’t, I
just don’t know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance.”
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm
As I said, I don't know whether that red spot is the bullet hole. If itI'm having a hard time believing that you fell for that, since it was
"Humes’ comments regarding the supposed higher wound during his
HSCA testimony are particularly telling. After several failed attempts to
get both Humes and Boswell to agree the inshoot was high, the
HSCA’s Charles Petty, MD had another go with Humes, this time
concerning the possibility a red spot in the autopsy photos visible at the
top of JFK’s otherwise pristine rear scalp was the inshoot. Gazing
together at the photograph showing the all but unblemished rear of
“I don’t know what that [red spot] is. No. 1, I can assure
you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no
defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don’t
know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don’t, I
just don’t know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance.”
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm
isn't, it is elsewhere. I'm not going to dismiss the unanimous opinion of
every medical examiner who saw so much more evidence than I have just
because I don't see an obvious bullet hole. Why would you do so?
given by the pathologists for locations are all within the confines of the
photo in question, so why would the bullet hole not be there? The photo
quality is very good so that's not an excuse. I think you've just proved
that there is no bullet hole in the BOH.
knowledgeable people have concluded. You are not competent to render such
judgements and you have seen a fraction of the evidence.
BOH, you're going to cop out and rely on 'experts'!
Post by bigdog
the review panels saw or if the bullet hole showed up elsewhere in the
other photos they looked at. It is possible the entry wound could be
covered by JFK's hair. That's why I'm not dumb enough to think I can look
at one photo and think I can make a better determination than the review
panels. Apparently that isn't a problem for you.
So no one can se the bullet hole in the BOH, but you don't dare sayPost by mainframetech
simple bullet hole.
It probably does but I can't be certain that red spot is the bullet holePost by bigdog
the review panels who saw so much more. Absurd.
What's absurd is your attempt to pretend that the photo can't show aPost by mainframetech
expert to determine if there was a bullet-sized hole in the BOH. Anyone
can see plainly that there is no such thing.
So you think by looking at one photo you can make a better judgement thanPost by bigdog
What I do know is that at scalp had been pulled away from the
skull and if it was pulled back up for that picture, it may not have lined
up with the hole in the scalp making the hole harder to see. It's also
possible the entry wound is hidden under the hair. In any case, it would
be very silly of me to think with my complete lack of training in forensic
medicine that I could look at one photo and make a better determination
than the three pathologists who conducted the autopsy and teams of the
best medical examiners in the country who got to see far more and better
quality photos and x-rays than I have. What kind of moron would do
something like that?
The moron would be the one that thought that it would have to take anWhat I do know is that at scalp had been pulled away from the
skull and if it was pulled back up for that picture, it may not have lined
up with the hole in the scalp making the hole harder to see. It's also
possible the entry wound is hidden under the hair. In any case, it would
be very silly of me to think with my complete lack of training in forensic
medicine that I could look at one photo and make a better determination
than the three pathologists who conducted the autopsy and teams of the
best medical examiners in the country who got to see far more and better
quality photos and x-rays than I have. What kind of moron would do
something like that?
expert to determine if there was a bullet-sized hole in the BOH. Anyone
can see plainly that there is no such thing.
the review panels who saw so much more. Absurd.
simple bullet hole.
the review panels saw or if the bullet hole showed up elsewhere in the
other photos they looked at. It is possible the entry wound could be
covered by JFK's hair. That's why I'm not dumb enough to think I can look
at one photo and think I can make a better determination than the review
panels. Apparently that isn't a problem for you.
the emperor has no clothes! Some weigher of evidence you turned out to
be.
Post by bigdog
LOL! Chicken! Just say it. You can't see any hole in the BOH in thePost by mainframetech
This is not rocket science. It's a simple hole in
the BOH in a photo. So where is it?
Where the review panels said. In the BOH.This is not rocket science. It's a simple hole in
the BOH in a photo. So where is it?
photo in question.
Post by bigdog
talking about.
LOL! Not much to grab on to in that sentence.Post by mainframetech
Sherlock! If the photo was legitimate, then there is NO hole in the BOH.
But if the photo is altered, then we're dealing with altered evidence,
which means the possibility that the panels were shown the phony photos so
that they would come to the wrong conclusion as to the cause of death. A
bullet from above and behind.
Then there is the correct explanation. You just don't know what you arePost by bigdog
the BOH. Brilliant work, Sherlock. Did the people who altered the photo to
hide the big hole forget to alter it to show a little hole?
Sounds like you figured it out all by yourself! Excellent workPost by mainframetech
which you tend to do. I've pointed out that the photo of the BOH was
altered, and there is no doubt about it.
Oh, so you are using a altered photo to prove there was no entry wound inPost by bigdog
You are making a big deal about not being able to see a small entry wound
in the BOH. Apparently it doesn't bother you that the large blowout in the
BOH that you claim was there doesn't show up in that photo either. Got any
explanation for that?
Of course! I've addressed that recently. You probably missed it,You are making a big deal about not being able to see a small entry wound
in the BOH. Apparently it doesn't bother you that the large blowout in the
BOH that you claim was there doesn't show up in that photo either. Got any
explanation for that?
which you tend to do. I've pointed out that the photo of the BOH was
altered, and there is no doubt about it.
the BOH. Brilliant work, Sherlock. Did the people who altered the photo to
hide the big hole forget to alter it to show a little hole?
Sherlock! If the photo was legitimate, then there is NO hole in the BOH.
But if the photo is altered, then we're dealing with altered evidence,
which means the possibility that the panels were shown the phony photos so
that they would come to the wrong conclusion as to the cause of death. A
bullet from above and behind.
talking about.
Post by bigdog
assassination that is pretty much irrelevant.
believe about the assassination. My arguments haven't moved the needle of
public opinion.
arrive. Name ONE person who said he saw two.
Dennis David was the proof of 2 caskets arriving, and this is aPost by mainframetech
you all about is supported by 40% of the US population,
Since most people who don't know the most rudimentary facts of thePost by bigdog
stated that seriously. Amazing these klutzes who masterminded this
conspiracy did so many dumb things yet still pulled it off and have gotten
away with it all these years. They couldn't hire competent gunmen. They
didn't give them decent ammo. They put an army of shooters in Dealey Plaza
and then tried to blame one man. They planted a bullet at Parkland but put
it on the wrong gurney. They sent a guy to kill Oswald but he didn't get
there at the announced time of the transfer. They played a ridiculous game
of musical caskets at Bethesda instead of just having the pathologists
falsify the report. You claim they falsified the BOH photo but forgot to
put in an entrance wound. They forgot to alter the photo that shows a
bullet hole in the forehead/temple. All this and about a dozen other
things that I've forgotten about. You have to believe they made all these
mistakes and yet still got away with the crime of the century. It is truly
amazing the things you are willing to convince yourself of to fool
yourself into believing in a non-existent conspiracy.
You seem to have forgotten something else. That phony story I've toldPost by mainframetech
Sworn testimony says there was a
'large hole' there, and yet the photo shows what the original government
report told about, which was no large hole in the BOH. Whoever altered
the autopsy photos forgot to put in the bullet hole,
I suggested that facetiously before I read your comment in which youSworn testimony says there was a
'large hole' there, and yet the photo shows what the original government
report told about, which was no large hole in the BOH. Whoever altered
the autopsy photos forgot to put in the bullet hole,
stated that seriously. Amazing these klutzes who masterminded this
conspiracy did so many dumb things yet still pulled it off and have gotten
away with it all these years. They couldn't hire competent gunmen. They
didn't give them decent ammo. They put an army of shooters in Dealey Plaza
and then tried to blame one man. They planted a bullet at Parkland but put
it on the wrong gurney. They sent a guy to kill Oswald but he didn't get
there at the announced time of the transfer. They played a ridiculous game
of musical caskets at Bethesda instead of just having the pathologists
falsify the report. You claim they falsified the BOH photo but forgot to
put in an entrance wound. They forgot to alter the photo that shows a
bullet hole in the forehead/temple. All this and about a dozen other
things that I've forgotten about. You have to believe they made all these
mistakes and yet still got away with the crime of the century. It is truly
amazing the things you are willing to convince yourself of to fool
yourself into believing in a non-existent conspiracy.
you all about is supported by 40% of the US population,
assassination that is pretty much irrelevant.
Post by mainframetech
and some folks
have kept arguing for the phony story for 50 years and more. That means
the true story has less traction and is an uphill battle for belief of the
evidence. In effect, YOU are the reason that all the info you've listed
above is hard for some people to believe is because you go around arguing
for the tired old WCR.
99.999999% of the people in this country aren't even aware of what Iand some folks
have kept arguing for the phony story for 50 years and more. That means
the true story has less traction and is an uphill battle for belief of the
evidence. In effect, YOU are the reason that all the info you've listed
above is hard for some people to believe is because you go around arguing
for the tired old WCR.
believe about the assassination. My arguments haven't moved the needle of
public opinion.
Post by mainframetech
nut' killer, so what else could they conclude?
That there was no conspiracy which would have been the correct answer.Post by bigdog
drawings for the HSCA. They had the HSCA continue with the cover up but
forgot to tell them to conclude that there was only one shooter. What
morons.
The evidence that was left to look at would suggest only one 'lonePost by mainframetech
but they didn't
forget to tell Ida Dox to put it in to her drawing of the original photo.
Talk about hilarious! The drawing has a bullet hole, and the photo it
came from has nothing! LOL!
Oh, so they were still engineering the cover up when Ida Dox produced thebut they didn't
forget to tell Ida Dox to put it in to her drawing of the original photo.
Talk about hilarious! The drawing has a bullet hole, and the photo it
came from has nothing! LOL!
drawings for the HSCA. They had the HSCA continue with the cover up but
forgot to tell them to conclude that there was only one shooter. What
morons.
nut' killer, so what else could they conclude?
Post by mainframetech
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
questions to get to the same truth. Think it through.
Obviously you haven't or you wouldn't have made a such a silly argument.http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
Post by bigdog
different questions.
Depends on the questions. It's very possible to ask differentPost by mainframetech
Yes it does so I ask you again. Why would you expect the same answers toPost by bigdog
Depends on the questions.Post by mainframetech
see the difference. And it's not due to different questions.
Why would you expect him to give the same answers to different questions?Post by bigdog
Both were interviews and the questions were different so naturally the
answers would be different.
Oh, get away! His 2 statements did not agree, and it is simple toPost by mainframetech
Go ahead, look for the bullet entry! When you can't find it, you'll
have to call Lipsey a liar.
And don't forget his mismatch in his HSCA statement and his video.
More lies.
There were no lies in either of the two statements. They are compatible.Go ahead, look for the bullet entry! When you can't find it, you'll
have to call Lipsey a liar.
And don't forget his mismatch in his HSCA statement and his video.
More lies.
Both were interviews and the questions were different so naturally the
answers would be different.
see the difference. And it's not due to different questions.
different questions.
questions to get to the same truth. Think it through.
Post by mainframetech
No you haven't. All the witnesses you cited only said they saw one casketPost by bigdog
caskets arrived at different times. You still can't.
I have done so, and you ignored the proof.Post by mainframetech
If I am wrong you should be able to point to a witness that said twoPost by bigdog
who weighed in described one casket.
WRONG!Post by mainframetech
there were 2 caskets and they arrived at different times, and you still
try to pretend that the evidence didn't happen! That's weird! You base
your imaginary story on guesses as to road conditions, and speed of
driving, when you have flat statements of what had transpired in reality.
And of course, you've left out the time spent at the main entrance while
the family got out of the ambulance.
There is no sworn testimony by anyone that two caskets arrived. EverybodyPost by bigdog
imaginary shipping casket to get to Bethesda 42 minute before the bronze
casket. For one it's only a 40 minute drive from Andrews to Bethesda and
that is if you don't have a police escort. The ambulance had a huge head
start on any shipping casket that would have been unloaded from AF1 after
all the cameras and witnesses had left the area. Even if the shipping
casket had been sent to Bethesda by teleportation, it could not have
arrived 42 minutes before the bronze casket.
I wonder about you. You get sworn testimony and corroboration thatPost by mainframetech
Now here's a final statement from Lipsey, since you're so determined to
"The ceremonial troop in Washington had been arranged to meet the body at
Andrews. Put it in a hearse. We had a decoy hearse because we knew there
was a mob waiting at Bethesda Naval Hospital. So we got in a couple of
these helicopters with our honor guard when they left and flew over to the
hospital to get there before they did. And when they came in, one of the
hearses went right up to the front door. All of the crowd, of course,
rushed over there. The one with the body in it went around to the back
where the morgue was and we unloaded it. We met them in the back and
unloaded it right there to avoid the news media and the crowd and
everything else."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
And while Lipsey said the casket went by road, there was no choice that
it went by helicopter because it got to the morgue 42 minutes BEFORE the
empty Bronze casket. Lipsey has clearly said there were 2 ambulances, one
was 'decoy', and one went to the back door with the body, and the other
went to the main entrance.
I've showed you the time line that would have made it impossible for yourNow here's a final statement from Lipsey, since you're so determined to
"The ceremonial troop in Washington had been arranged to meet the body at
Andrews. Put it in a hearse. We had a decoy hearse because we knew there
was a mob waiting at Bethesda Naval Hospital. So we got in a couple of
these helicopters with our honor guard when they left and flew over to the
hospital to get there before they did. And when they came in, one of the
hearses went right up to the front door. All of the crowd, of course,
rushed over there. The one with the body in it went around to the back
where the morgue was and we unloaded it. We met them in the back and
unloaded it right there to avoid the news media and the crowd and
everything else."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
And while Lipsey said the casket went by road, there was no choice that
it went by helicopter because it got to the morgue 42 minutes BEFORE the
empty Bronze casket. Lipsey has clearly said there were 2 ambulances, one
was 'decoy', and one went to the back door with the body, and the other
went to the main entrance.
imaginary shipping casket to get to Bethesda 42 minute before the bronze
casket. For one it's only a 40 minute drive from Andrews to Bethesda and
that is if you don't have a police escort. The ambulance had a huge head
start on any shipping casket that would have been unloaded from AF1 after
all the cameras and witnesses had left the area. Even if the shipping
casket had been sent to Bethesda by teleportation, it could not have
arrived 42 minutes before the bronze casket.
there were 2 caskets and they arrived at different times, and you still
try to pretend that the evidence didn't happen! That's weird! You base
your imaginary story on guesses as to road conditions, and speed of
driving, when you have flat statements of what had transpired in reality.
And of course, you've left out the time spent at the main entrance while
the family got out of the ambulance.
who weighed in described one casket.
caskets arrived at different times. You still can't.
arrive. Name ONE person who said he saw two.
'swamp post' and repetitive to boot. I'm outa here.
Chris
bigdog
2018-07-26 01:46:48 UTC
Post by mainframetech
Oh, so now qualifications matter to you. Humes was far more qualified toPost by bigdog
declare that it is obvious but why would I do that? People far more
qualified than me who have determined without a doubt that a bullet
entered the back of JFK's head. I believe the red spot is the hole in the
scalp and my guess is that it does not line up with the hole in the skull.
WRONG! Humes, who was certainly far more qualified than you,Post by mainframetech
bullet struck the BOH?
I could take a cue from you and pretend to see a bullet hole and thenPost by bigdog
better judgement about an entry wound in JFK's head than the original
pathologists who saw the body and the review panels who saw so many more
and better quality photos than I have.
LOL! Not willing to take the challenge when you're so sure that aPost by mainframetech
of what I saw is somehow more right?
I know it is.Post by bigdog
the findings of the 3 pathologists who had the body in front of them as
well as teams of highly qualified review panels who saw so many more
photos as well as x-rays.
WRONG as usual! So you think your amateur opinion of my flat statementPost by mainframetech
DON'T GIVE ME THAT COVERUP CRAP! The photo of the BOH that we have is
perfectly valid and clear for the purpose of seeing a bullet hole. But
there is none there. The photo shows the areas where the pathologists
said the bullet hole was located, but there's nothing there. And you
won't want to hear it, but the photo of the BOH is also very WRONG, since
there were over 39 eyewitnesses that there was a 'large hole' in the BOH,
right where the photo shows hair and no hole. Not only do the photos show
falseness in the reporting, but they prove they were altered as well. If
the medical examiners saw those photos, then there's no doubt they got the
wrong conclusions as to the cause of death. Naturally, the LNs reading
this will ignore completely the photographic proof just shown.
So you think your amateurish opinion based on looking at one photo trumpsDON'T GIVE ME THAT COVERUP CRAP! The photo of the BOH that we have is
perfectly valid and clear for the purpose of seeing a bullet hole. But
there is none there. The photo shows the areas where the pathologists
said the bullet hole was located, but there's nothing there. And you
won't want to hear it, but the photo of the BOH is also very WRONG, since
there were over 39 eyewitnesses that there was a 'large hole' in the BOH,
right where the photo shows hair and no hole. Not only do the photos show
falseness in the reporting, but they prove they were altered as well. If
the medical examiners saw those photos, then there's no doubt they got the
wrong conclusions as to the cause of death. Naturally, the LNs reading
this will ignore completely the photographic proof just shown.
the findings of the 3 pathologists who had the body in front of them as
well as teams of highly qualified review panels who saw so many more
photos as well as x-rays.
of what I saw is somehow more right?
Post by mainframetech
Then why didn't you take the
challenge when I first made it, to point out the bullet hole location
using the information from the pathologists as to the location of the
bullet hole?
I'm not dumb enough to think by looking at one photo that I can make aThen why didn't you take the
challenge when I first made it, to point out the bullet hole location
using the information from the pathologists as to the location of the
bullet hole?
better judgement about an entry wound in JFK's head than the original
pathologists who saw the body and the review panels who saw so many more
and better quality photos than I have.
bullet struck the BOH?
declare that it is obvious but why would I do that? People far more
qualified than me who have determined without a doubt that a bullet
entered the back of JFK's head. I believe the red spot is the hole in the
scalp and my guess is that it does not line up with the hole in the skull.
assess the medical evidence than the two techies you put so much faith in
but that doesn't stop you from accepting their word over his. I am not
relying on my own expertise to assess the medical evidence because I have
none. I am relying on the review panels which were comprised some of the
finest forensic medical examiners in the country. THEY said the wound was
higher than where Humes placed it. The other reason for believing that red
spot is the entrance wound is because somebody went to the trouble of
putting a ruler next to it and having it photographed. What reason would
there have been to do that if not to show the location of the entry
wound.
Post by mainframetech
said the
red spot was "nothing", and that it did NOT have an equal hole in the
skull underneath. He certain (as an expert more than you) would have
thought of the mismatch of scalp and skull and considered it, and he saw
NO matching hole in the skull. BTWE, if that photo were of them pulling
the scalp forward to make it look like normal, it did indeed look like
there was NO extra scalp to pull past the bullet hole if there had been
one there.
given enough information, or whatever, so that they made a wrong
conclusion, it's still your job to tell the truth when you see it, or know
about it.
We're supposed to believe all those esteemed medical examiners on severalsaid the
red spot was "nothing", and that it did NOT have an equal hole in the
skull underneath. He certain (as an expert more than you) would have
thought of the mismatch of scalp and skull and considered it, and he saw
NO matching hole in the skull. BTWE, if that photo were of them pulling
the scalp forward to make it look like normal, it did indeed look like
there was NO extra scalp to pull past the bullet hole if there had been
one there.
Post by bigdog
Why would I want to substitute my guess for the unanimous verdict of every
qualified person who has seen far more and better evidence than I have.
It has to do with telling the truth. If they were lazy or were notWhy would I want to substitute my guess for the unanimous verdict of every
qualified person who has seen far more and better evidence than I have.
given enough information, or whatever, so that they made a wrong
conclusion, it's still your job to tell the truth when you see it, or know
about it.
review panels came to the wrong conclusion and you've come to the right
one. Do you have any idea how funny that is?
Post by mainframetech
I'm not blaming them. I'm putting my faith in them. You would be wise toPost by bigdog
the opinions of those who are more qualified than I am and have seen far
more than I have far outweighs any opinion I have. It also outweighs any
opinion you have but since you are so bad at weighing evidence, you can't
figure that out.
Ah, that's your excuse! Blame it on the 'experts'.Post by mainframetech
Wow! No belief in your own WCR! More proof for
me that the WCR is a tired old phony and outmoded. So you try to lay off
the blame on the photo quality, which is just fine for the purpose of
seeing a bullet hole, and you've blamed your lack of courage to look for a
bullet hole on the fact that it's only one photo!
I don't have to blame anything. I know how to weigh evidence and I knowWow! No belief in your own WCR! More proof for
me that the WCR is a tired old phony and outmoded. So you try to lay off
the blame on the photo quality, which is just fine for the purpose of
seeing a bullet hole, and you've blamed your lack of courage to look for a
bullet hole on the fact that it's only one photo!
the opinions of those who are more qualified than I am and have seen far
more than I have far outweighs any opinion I have. It also outweighs any
opinion you have but since you are so bad at weighing evidence, you can't
figure that out.
do the same but then you would have to give up your cherished beliefs.
Post by mainframetech
In actuality,
given that I've told you all that I have seen, you have at your fingertips
all the evidence you need that exceeds the 'experts' and what they knew,
or were allowed to know.
Even for you that is a ridiculously absurd statement. You are telling me IIn actuality,
given that I've told you all that I have seen, you have at your fingertips
all the evidence you need that exceeds the 'experts' and what they knew,
or were allowed to know.
should put faith in what you have determined and disregard what every
qualified medical examiner has concluded. You have reached a new low with
that statement.
They did have your opinions. They certainly didn't need them. Who does?
Post by mainframetech
What was seen in the body with organs
removed, and much else. So the decision to use that info or to throw it
away to save the WCR is completely up to you.
So you continue to put more faith in what the techies said they saw ratherWhat was seen in the body with organs
removed, and much else. So the decision to use that info or to throw it
away to save the WCR is completely up to you.
than what the pathologists said they saw even though the findings of the
pathologists have been confirmed by every forensic medical examiner who
has seen the photos and the x-rays of the autopsy. You're going to
completely disregard their opinions because decades later a couple techies
who were in their early 20s and the time and taking part in their first
autopsy of a gunshot victim told a different story. No wonder you're so
hopelessly lost and unable to figure out a crime that the DPD had solved
in the first 12 hours.
Post by mainframetech
bullet hole. And the area described by the pathologists was there in the
photo. But...no bullet hole!
The bullet hole is next to the ruler in the photo. That would be the onlyPost by bigdog
bullet hole that every qualified medical examiner determined was there and
was a wound of entry.
Oh? Well, where is it? The photo was just fine quality to show aPost by mainframetech
Failed excuses! Your
lack of courage means that there is NO bullet hole there in that photo,
and we both know the reason. There was no bullet hole in the BOH, and the
photo is a phony in either case. One more for the CT scorecard.
Whatever you may think about my lack of courage it doesn't erase theFailed excuses! Your
lack of courage means that there is NO bullet hole there in that photo,
and we both know the reason. There was no bullet hole in the BOH, and the
photo is a phony in either case. One more for the CT scorecard.
bullet hole that every qualified medical examiner determined was there and
was a wound of entry.
bullet hole. And the area described by the pathologists was there in the
photo. But...no bullet hole!
reason to put a ruler next to that spot. If you want to believe Humes
testimony that the bullet hole was lower, that would put it beneath JFK's
hair about 4 inches lower than that spot.
Post by mainframetech
showing a bullet hole, had there been one there. As L'il Abner used to
say, 'any fool can plainly see' that if it was there, we could all see it.
Any fool can see a bullet hole in the forehead/temple that sensible peoplePost by bigdog
the photos online aren't nearly as good as the originals which the review
panels have seen.
I know that the photo in question of the BIOH was perfectly fie forPost by mainframetech
If you were any good at weighing evidence, you would know the quality ofPost by bigdog
I don't need to see the bullet hole. Extremely qualified people who saw
many more and better photos as well as x-rays saw it. They don't need me
to confirm their findings.
Ah! Still blaming the photo quality.I don't need to see the bullet hole. Extremely qualified people who saw
many more and better photos as well as x-rays saw it. They don't need me
to confirm their findings.
the photos online aren't nearly as good as the originals which the review
panels have seen.
showing a bullet hole, had there been one there. As L'il Abner used to
say, 'any fool can plainly see' that if it was there, we could all see it.
can't see.
Post by mainframetech
didn't dare look.
The only reason I have wavered at all is due to Humes testimony. HePost by bigdog
you have come by most of your knowledge. You just assumed it.
I'm not hearing a positive statement so I'm still assuming that youPost by mainframetech
But you haven't even looked at
the photo so how would you know the quality is bad? I think the quality
is just fine to see a bullet hole, if there was one there.
Who told you I hadn't looked at the photo? Oh, that's right. The same wayBut you haven't even looked at
the photo so how would you know the quality is bad? I think the quality
is just fine to see a bullet hole, if there was one there.
you have come by most of your knowledge. You just assumed it.
didn't dare look.
disputes that the red spot is where the entry wound was. I have more faith
in the HSCA medical examiners because they had lots of experience
performing medico-legal autopsies on gunshot victims and Humes did not. In
a jury trial, laymen on the juries are often faced with conflicting expert
testimony and are tasked with determining which is the more credible.
That's the situation we are in here. Humes was a poor choice to conduct
such an important autopsy but we have to live with that mistake. Despite
the fact he was out of his element, the team did gather sufficient
information through the numerous photos and x-rays that were taken that
would later allow teams of esteemed forensic medical examiners to review
their work and confirm their basic findings that two bullets hit JFK from
behind even though they placed the entry wound in the head higher than
Humes did. They also confirmed the determination that the bullet that
entered the back exited from the throat.
Post by mainframetech
your level of knowledge,
But not as knowledgeable as the review panels,Post by bigdog
and I and many others believe that is the bullet hole. I can't be certain
that is the bullet hole because I'm not qualified to make such judgements
and I have seen only that one photo. People who are qualified and have
seen so much more have determined there is an entry wound in the BOH and
that is good enough for me. Obviously nothing would be good enough for
you.
The answer to the 'red spot' is simple. Humes, an expert far abovePost by mainframetech
hole right where the pathologists said there was supposed to be one.
Who said no one can see a bullet hole. There is a red spot in the photoPost by bigdog
that of the original pathology team and all the review panels. Is there no
end to your silliness. Apparently not.
Well, you might want to try and explain why no one can see a bulletPost by mainframetech
I never
heard you comment after looking, or did you avoid looking too so you could
have 'plausible denial'? It doesn't take experts to see that there is no
bullet hole in the BOH of that photo, and one photo is all that's needed
to tell that there's no bullet hole.
Amazing how you think by looking at one photo your opinion should trumpI never
heard you comment after looking, or did you avoid looking too so you could
have 'plausible denial'? It doesn't take experts to see that there is no
bullet hole in the BOH of that photo, and one photo is all that's needed
to tell that there's no bullet hole.
that of the original pathology team and all the review panels. Is there no
end to your silliness. Apparently not.
hole right where the pathologists said there was supposed to be one.
and I and many others believe that is the bullet hole. I can't be certain
that is the bullet hole because I'm not qualified to make such judgements
and I have seen only that one photo. People who are qualified and have
seen so much more have determined there is an entry wound in the BOH and
that is good enough for me. Obviously nothing would be good enough for
you.
your level of knowledge,
Post by mainframetech
has said the 'red spot' was NOTHING and he also
said that there was no matching hole in the skull beneath the scalp. So
we've done away with the 'red spot'. On to your next excuse.
Your double standards are truly amazing. Humes's qualifications don't meanhas said the 'red spot' was NOTHING and he also
said that there was no matching hole in the skull beneath the scalp. So
we've done away with the 'red spot'. On to your next excuse.
diddly to you when it comes to accepting the contrary opinions of the
techies but now that you want to cherry pick one opinion of Humes, his
word is gospel even though that word has been disputed by far more
qualified people in the area of forensic medicine.
Post by mainframetech
Oh, you think they just forgot to mention it. <chuckle>Post by bigdog
How would you know?
It's fine for imagining you see bullet holes.
That's what all the knowledgeable people have said. Then we have your
opinion.
WRONG! NO expert said that there is no bullet hole in the forehead.Post by mainframetech
But
of course, you don't want to get too deep into this, because there is only
one final answer.
Yes there is. Oswald did it.But
of course, you don't want to get too deep into this, because there is only
one final answer.
How would you know?
It's fine for imagining you see bullet holes.
Post by mainframetech
One photo of the right area is all that is
needed to determine if there is a bullet hole there or not.
There is a bullet hole in the BOH and no bullet hole in the forehead.One photo of the right area is all that is
needed to determine if there is a bullet hole there or not.
That's what all the knowledgeable people have said. Then we have your
opinion.
Post by mainframetech
elsewhere.
They probably only saw the portion of the defect that extended into thePost by bigdog
parietal.
Nope, they said the 'large hole' was in the BOH, not the side orPost by mainframetech
eyewitnesses all corroborated each other that the 'large hole' was there.
There was a large hole that extended into occipital bone but was chieflyPost by bigdog
claims there was a blowout in the BOH. I know better.
Ah! That means that you have some explanation for why over 39Post by mainframetech
As well, you haven't found any explanation for there to be hair all
over the BOH, when over 39 eyewitnesses said they saw a 'large hole'
there. Many of them were medically trained and knew what they were
describing.
You are the one who needs to explain that conundrum. You are the one whoAs well, you haven't found any explanation for there to be hair all
over the BOH, when over 39 eyewitnesses said they saw a 'large hole'
there. Many of them were medically trained and knew what they were
describing.
claims there was a blowout in the BOH. I know better.
eyewitnesses all corroborated each other that the 'large hole' was there.
parietal.
elsewhere.
occipital because the forward flaps had been closed over the defect.
Post by mainframetech
BOH, you're going to cop out and rely on 'experts'!
That isn't obvious at all. I can see what I believe to be the bullet hole.Post by bigdog
knowledgeable people have concluded. You are not competent to render such
judgements and you have seen a fraction of the evidence.
So even though it's obvious that you can't see any bullet hole in thePost by mainframetech
given by the pathologists for locations are all within the confines of the
photo in question, so why would the bullet hole not be there? The photo
quality is very good so that's not an excuse. I think you've just proved
that there is no bullet hole in the BOH.
You can carry on all you want. Your opinion doesn't stack up against whatPost by bigdog
isn't, it is elsewhere. I'm not going to dismiss the unanimous opinion of
every medical examiner who saw so much more evidence than I have just
because I don't see an obvious bullet hole. Why would you do so?
"obvious bullet hole"? Then why can't it be seen? The variationsPost by mainframetech
I'm having a hard time believing that you fell for that, since it was
"Humes’ comments regarding the supposed higher wound during his
HSCA testimony are particularly telling. After several failed attempts to
get both Humes and Boswell to agree the inshoot was high, the
HSCA’s Charles Petty, MD had another go with Humes, this time
concerning the possibility a red spot in the autopsy photos visible at the
top of JFK’s otherwise pristine rear scalp was the inshoot. Gazing
together at the photograph showing the all but unblemished rear of
“I don’t know what that [red spot] is. No. 1, I can assure
you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no
defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don’t
know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don’t, I
just don’t know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance.”
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm
As I said, I don't know whether that red spot is the bullet hole. If itI'm having a hard time believing that you fell for that, since it was
"Humes’ comments regarding the supposed higher wound during his
HSCA testimony are particularly telling. After several failed attempts to
get both Humes and Boswell to agree the inshoot was high, the
HSCA’s Charles Petty, MD had another go with Humes, this time
concerning the possibility a red spot in the autopsy photos visible at the
top of JFK’s otherwise pristine rear scalp was the inshoot. Gazing
together at the photograph showing the all but unblemished rear of
“I don’t know what that [red spot] is. No. 1, I can assure
you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no
defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don’t
know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don’t, I
just don’t know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance.”
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm
isn't, it is elsewhere. I'm not going to dismiss the unanimous opinion of
every medical examiner who saw so much more evidence than I have just
because I don't see an obvious bullet hole. Why would you do so?
given by the pathologists for locations are all within the confines of the
photo in question, so why would the bullet hole not be there? The photo
quality is very good so that's not an excuse. I think you've just proved
that there is no bullet hole in the BOH.
knowledgeable people have concluded. You are not competent to render such
judgements and you have seen a fraction of the evidence.
BOH, you're going to cop out and rely on 'experts'!
Post by mainframetech
the emperor has no clothes! Some weigher of evidence you turned out to
be.
You keep insisting I don't see the bullet hole. I have said repeatedly IPost by bigdog
the review panels saw or if the bullet hole showed up elsewhere in the
other photos they looked at. It is possible the entry wound could be
covered by JFK's hair. That's why I'm not dumb enough to think I can look
at one photo and think I can make a better determination than the review
panels. Apparently that isn't a problem for you.
So no one can se the bullet hole in the BOH, but you don't dare sayPost by mainframetech
simple bullet hole.
It probably does but I can't be certain that red spot is the bullet holePost by bigdog
the review panels who saw so much more. Absurd.
What's absurd is your attempt to pretend that the photo can't show aPost by mainframetech
expert to determine if there was a bullet-sized hole in the BOH. Anyone
can see plainly that there is no such thing.
So you think by looking at one photo you can make a better judgement thanPost by bigdog
What I do know is that at scalp had been pulled away from the
skull and if it was pulled back up for that picture, it may not have lined
up with the hole in the scalp making the hole harder to see. It's also
possible the entry wound is hidden under the hair. In any case, it would
be very silly of me to think with my complete lack of training in forensic
medicine that I could look at one photo and make a better determination
than the three pathologists who conducted the autopsy and teams of the
best medical examiners in the country who got to see far more and better
quality photos and x-rays than I have. What kind of moron would do
something like that?
The moron would be the one that thought that it would have to take anWhat I do know is that at scalp had been pulled away from the
skull and if it was pulled back up for that picture, it may not have lined
up with the hole in the scalp making the hole harder to see. It's also
possible the entry wound is hidden under the hair. In any case, it would
be very silly of me to think with my complete lack of training in forensic
medicine that I could look at one photo and make a better determination
than the three pathologists who conducted the autopsy and teams of the
best medical examiners in the country who got to see far more and better
quality photos and x-rays than I have. What kind of moron would do
something like that?
expert to determine if there was a bullet-sized hole in the BOH. Anyone
can see plainly that there is no such thing.
the review panels who saw so much more. Absurd.
simple bullet hole.
the review panels saw or if the bullet hole showed up elsewhere in the
other photos they looked at. It is possible the entry wound could be
covered by JFK's hair. That's why I'm not dumb enough to think I can look
at one photo and think I can make a better determination than the review
panels. Apparently that isn't a problem for you.
the emperor has no clothes! Some weigher of evidence you turned out to
be.
believe that red spot is the bullet hole and the only reason I am not
certain of that is because Humes testified it was lower. Weighing his
credentials against the review panes, I'm going with the latter but I'm
willing to allow for the possibility that he is right and they were wrong.
I'm not dumb enough to give you the same benefit.
Post by mainframetech
photo in question.
Why would I say something that isn't true?Post by bigdog
LOL! Chicken! Just say it. You can't see any hole in the BOH in thePost by mainframetech
This is not rocket science. It's a simple hole in
the BOH in a photo. So where is it?
Where the review panels said. In the BOH.This is not rocket science. It's a simple hole in
the BOH in a photo. So where is it?
photo in question.
Post by mainframetech
Not much to dispute either.Post by bigdog
talking about.
LOL! Not much to grab on to in that sentence.Post by mainframetech
Sherlock! If the photo was legitimate, then there is NO hole in the BOH.
But if the photo is altered, then we're dealing with altered evidence,
which means the possibility that the panels were shown the phony photos so
that they would come to the wrong conclusion as to the cause of death. A
bullet from above and behind.
Then there is the correct explanation. You just don't know what you arePost by bigdog
the BOH. Brilliant work, Sherlock. Did the people who altered the photo to
hide the big hole forget to alter it to show a little hole?
Sounds like you figured it out all by yourself! Excellent workPost by mainframetech
which you tend to do. I've pointed out that the photo of the BOH was
altered, and there is no doubt about it.
Oh, so you are using a altered photo to prove there was no entry wound inPost by bigdog
You are making a big deal about not being able to see a small entry wound
in the BOH. Apparently it doesn't bother you that the large blowout in the
BOH that you claim was there doesn't show up in that photo either. Got any
explanation for that?
Of course! I've addressed that recently. You probably missed it,You are making a big deal about not being able to see a small entry wound
in the BOH. Apparently it doesn't bother you that the large blowout in the
BOH that you claim was there doesn't show up in that photo either. Got any
explanation for that?
which you tend to do. I've pointed out that the photo of the BOH was
altered, and there is no doubt about it.
the BOH. Brilliant work, Sherlock. Did the people who altered the photo to
hide the big hole forget to alter it to show a little hole?
Sherlock! If the photo was legitimate, then there is NO hole in the BOH.
But if the photo is altered, then we're dealing with altered evidence,
which means the possibility that the panels were shown the phony photos so
that they would come to the wrong conclusion as to the cause of death. A
bullet from above and behind.
talking about.
Post by mainframetech
'swamp post' and repetitive to boot. I'm outa here.
Dennis David did not say he saw 2 caskets arrive and you know it. If hePost by bigdog
assassination that is pretty much irrelevant.
believe about the assassination. My arguments haven't moved the needle of
public opinion.
arrive. Name ONE person who said he saw two.
Dennis David was the proof of 2 caskets arriving, and this is aPost by mainframetech
you all about is supported by 40% of the US population,
Since most people who don't know the most rudimentary facts of thePost by bigdog
stated that seriously. Amazing these klutzes who masterminded this
conspiracy did so many dumb things yet still pulled it off and have gotten
away with it all these years. They couldn't hire competent gunmen. They
didn't give them decent ammo. They put an army of shooters in Dealey Plaza
and then tried to blame one man. They planted a bullet at Parkland but put
it on the wrong gurney. They sent a guy to kill Oswald but he didn't get
there at the announced time of the transfer. They played a ridiculous game
of musical caskets at Bethesda instead of just having the pathologists
falsify the report. You claim they falsified the BOH photo but forgot to
put in an entrance wound. They forgot to alter the photo that shows a
bullet hole in the forehead/temple. All this and about a dozen other
things that I've forgotten about. You have to believe they made all these
mistakes and yet still got away with the crime of the century. It is truly
amazing the things you are willing to convince yourself of to fool
yourself into believing in a non-existent conspiracy.
You seem to have forgotten something else. That phony story I've toldPost by mainframetech
Sworn testimony says there was a
'large hole' there, and yet the photo shows what the original government
report told about, which was no large hole in the BOH. Whoever altered
the autopsy photos forgot to put in the bullet hole,
I suggested that facetiously before I read your comment in which youSworn testimony says there was a
'large hole' there, and yet the photo shows what the original government
report told about, which was no large hole in the BOH. Whoever altered
the autopsy photos forgot to put in the bullet hole,
stated that seriously. Amazing these klutzes who masterminded this
conspiracy did so many dumb things yet still pulled it off and have gotten
away with it all these years. They couldn't hire competent gunmen. They
didn't give them decent ammo. They put an army of shooters in Dealey Plaza
and then tried to blame one man. They planted a bullet at Parkland but put
it on the wrong gurney. They sent a guy to kill Oswald but he didn't get
there at the announced time of the transfer. They played a ridiculous game
of musical caskets at Bethesda instead of just having the pathologists
falsify the report. You claim they falsified the BOH photo but forgot to
put in an entrance wound. They forgot to alter the photo that shows a
bullet hole in the forehead/temple. All this and about a dozen other
things that I've forgotten about. You have to believe they made all these
mistakes and yet still got away with the crime of the century. It is truly
amazing the things you are willing to convince yourself of to fool
yourself into believing in a non-existent conspiracy.
you all about is supported by 40% of the US population,
assassination that is pretty much irrelevant.
Post by mainframetech
and some folks
have kept arguing for the phony story for 50 years and more. That means
the true story has less traction and is an uphill battle for belief of the
evidence. In effect, YOU are the reason that all the info you've listed
above is hard for some people to believe is because you go around arguing
for the tired old WCR.
99.999999% of the people in this country aren't even aware of what Iand some folks
have kept arguing for the phony story for 50 years and more. That means
the true story has less traction and is an uphill battle for belief of the
evidence. In effect, YOU are the reason that all the info you've listed
above is hard for some people to believe is because you go around arguing
for the tired old WCR.
believe about the assassination. My arguments haven't moved the needle of
public opinion.
Post by mainframetech
nut' killer, so what else could they conclude?
That there was no conspiracy which would have been the correct answer.Post by bigdog
drawings for the HSCA. They had the HSCA continue with the cover up but
forgot to tell them to conclude that there was only one shooter. What
morons.
The evidence that was left to look at would suggest only one 'lonePost by mainframetech
but they didn't
forget to tell Ida Dox to put it in to her drawing of the original photo.
Talk about hilarious! The drawing has a bullet hole, and the photo it
came from has nothing! LOL!
Oh, so they were still engineering the cover up when Ida Dox produced thebut they didn't
forget to tell Ida Dox to put it in to her drawing of the original photo.
Talk about hilarious! The drawing has a bullet hole, and the photo it
came from has nothing! LOL!
drawings for the HSCA. They had the HSCA continue with the cover up but
forgot to tell them to conclude that there was only one shooter. What
morons.
nut' killer, so what else could they conclude?
Post by mainframetech
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
questions to get to the same truth. Think it through.
Obviously you haven't or you wouldn't have made a such a silly argument.http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
Post by bigdog
different questions.
Depends on the questions. It's very possible to ask differentPost by mainframetech
Yes it does so I ask you again. Why would you expect the same answers toPost by bigdog
Depends on the questions.Post by mainframetech
see the difference. And it's not due to different questions.
Why would you expect him to give the same answers to different questions?Post by bigdog
Both were interviews and the questions were different so naturally the
answers would be different.
Oh, get away! His 2 statements did not agree, and it is simple toPost by mainframetech
Go ahead, look for the bullet entry! When you can't find it, you'll
have to call Lipsey a liar.
And don't forget his mismatch in his HSCA statement and his video.
More lies.
There were no lies in either of the two statements. They are compatible.Go ahead, look for the bullet entry! When you can't find it, you'll
have to call Lipsey a liar.
And don't forget his mismatch in his HSCA statement and his video.
More lies.
Both were interviews and the questions were different so naturally the
answers would be different.
see the difference. And it's not due to different questions.
different questions.
questions to get to the same truth. Think it through.
Post by mainframetech
No you haven't. All the witnesses you cited only said they saw one casketPost by bigdog
caskets arrived at different times. You still can't.
I have done so, and you ignored the proof.Post by mainframetech
If I am wrong you should be able to point to a witness that said twoPost by bigdog
who weighed in described one casket.
WRONG!Post by mainframetech
there were 2 caskets and they arrived at different times, and you still
try to pretend that the evidence didn't happen! That's weird! You base
your imaginary story on guesses as to road conditions, and speed of
driving, when you have flat statements of what had transpired in reality.
And of course, you've left out the time spent at the main entrance while
the family got out of the ambulance.
There is no sworn testimony by anyone that two caskets arrived. EverybodyPost by bigdog
imaginary shipping casket to get to Bethesda 42 minute before the bronze
casket. For one it's only a 40 minute drive from Andrews to Bethesda and
that is if you don't have a police escort. The ambulance had a huge head
start on any shipping casket that would have been unloaded from AF1 after
all the cameras and witnesses had left the area. Even if the shipping
casket had been sent to Bethesda by teleportation, it could not have
arrived 42 minutes before the bronze casket.
I wonder about you. You get sworn testimony and corroboration thatPost by mainframetech
Now here's a final statement from Lipsey, since you're so determined to
"The ceremonial troop in Washington had been arranged to meet the body at
Andrews. Put it in a hearse. We had a decoy hearse because we knew there
was a mob waiting at Bethesda Naval Hospital. So we got in a couple of
these helicopters with our honor guard when they left and flew over to the
hospital to get there before they did. And when they came in, one of the
hearses went right up to the front door. All of the crowd, of course,
rushed over there. The one with the body in it went around to the back
where the morgue was and we unloaded it. We met them in the back and
unloaded it right there to avoid the news media and the crowd and
everything else."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
And while Lipsey said the casket went by road, there was no choice that
it went by helicopter because it got to the morgue 42 minutes BEFORE the
empty Bronze casket. Lipsey has clearly said there were 2 ambulances, one
was 'decoy', and one went to the back door with the body, and the other
went to the main entrance.
I've showed you the time line that would have made it impossible for yourNow here's a final statement from Lipsey, since you're so determined to
"The ceremonial troop in Washington had been arranged to meet the body at
Andrews. Put it in a hearse. We had a decoy hearse because we knew there
was a mob waiting at Bethesda Naval Hospital. So we got in a couple of
these helicopters with our honor guard when they left and flew over to the
hospital to get there before they did. And when they came in, one of the
hearses went right up to the front door. All of the crowd, of course,
rushed over there. The one with the body in it went around to the back
where the morgue was and we unloaded it. We met them in the back and
unloaded it right there to avoid the news media and the crowd and
everything else."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
And while Lipsey said the casket went by road, there was no choice that
it went by helicopter because it got to the morgue 42 minutes BEFORE the
empty Bronze casket. Lipsey has clearly said there were 2 ambulances, one
was 'decoy', and one went to the back door with the body, and the other
went to the main entrance.
imaginary shipping casket to get to Bethesda 42 minute before the bronze
casket. For one it's only a 40 minute drive from Andrews to Bethesda and
that is if you don't have a police escort. The ambulance had a huge head
start on any shipping casket that would have been unloaded from AF1 after
all the cameras and witnesses had left the area. Even if the shipping
casket had been sent to Bethesda by teleportation, it could not have
arrived 42 minutes before the bronze casket.
there were 2 caskets and they arrived at different times, and you still
try to pretend that the evidence didn't happen! That's weird! You base
your imaginary story on guesses as to road conditions, and speed of
driving, when you have flat statements of what had transpired in reality.
And of course, you've left out the time spent at the main entrance while
the family got out of the ambulance.
who weighed in described one casket.
caskets arrived at different times. You still can't.
arrive. Name ONE person who said he saw two.
'swamp post' and repetitive to boot. I'm outa here.
had, you would be able to cite him saying that. You can't because he
didn't. Your multiple casket arrivals are the product of silly conspiracy
hobbyist figuring which doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
mainframetech
2018-07-27 00:53:16 UTC
Post by bigdog
assess the medical evidence than the two techies you put so much faith in
but that doesn't stop you from accepting their word over his.
WRONG! You still don't get it! Qualifications matter to YOU,Post by mainframetech
Oh, so now qualifications matter to you. Humes was far more qualified toPost by bigdog
declare that it is obvious but why would I do that? People far more
qualified than me who have determined without a doubt that a bullet
entered the back of JFK's head. I believe the red spot is the hole in the
scalp and my guess is that it does not line up with the hole in the skull.
WRONG! Humes, who was certainly far more qualified than you,Post by mainframetech
bullet struck the BOH?
I could take a cue from you and pretend to see a bullet hole and thenPost by bigdog
better judgement about an entry wound in JFK's head than the original
pathologists who saw the body and the review panels who saw so many more
and better quality photos than I have.
LOL! Not willing to take the challenge when you're so sure that aPost by mainframetech
of what I saw is somehow more right?
I know it is.Post by bigdog
the findings of the 3 pathologists who had the body in front of them as
well as teams of highly qualified review panels who saw so many more
photos as well as x-rays.
WRONG as usual! So you think your amateur opinion of my flat statementPost by mainframetech
DON'T GIVE ME THAT COVERUP CRAP! The photo of the BOH that we have is
perfectly valid and clear for the purpose of seeing a bullet hole. But
there is none there. The photo shows the areas where the pathologists
said the bullet hole was located, but there's nothing there. And you
won't want to hear it, but the photo of the BOH is also very WRONG, since
there were over 39 eyewitnesses that there was a 'large hole' in the BOH,
right where the photo shows hair and no hole. Not only do the photos show
falseness in the reporting, but they prove they were altered as well. If
the medical examiners saw those photos, then there's no doubt they got the
wrong conclusions as to the cause of death. Naturally, the LNs reading
this will ignore completely the photographic proof just shown.
So you think your amateurish opinion based on looking at one photo trumpsDON'T GIVE ME THAT COVERUP CRAP! The photo of the BOH that we have is
perfectly valid and clear for the purpose of seeing a bullet hole. But
there is none there. The photo shows the areas where the pathologists
said the bullet hole was located, but there's nothing there. And you
won't want to hear it, but the photo of the BOH is also very WRONG, since
there were over 39 eyewitnesses that there was a 'large hole' in the BOH,
right where the photo shows hair and no hole. Not only do the photos show
falseness in the reporting, but they prove they were altered as well. If
the medical examiners saw those photos, then there's no doubt they got the
wrong conclusions as to the cause of death. Naturally, the LNs reading
this will ignore completely the photographic proof just shown.
the findings of the 3 pathologists who had the body in front of them as
well as teams of highly qualified review panels who saw so many more
photos as well as x-rays.
of what I saw is somehow more right?
Post by mainframetech
Then why didn't you take the
challenge when I first made it, to point out the bullet hole location
using the information from the pathologists as to the location of the
bullet hole?
I'm not dumb enough to think by looking at one photo that I can make aThen why didn't you take the
challenge when I first made it, to point out the bullet hole location
using the information from the pathologists as to the location of the
bullet hole?
better judgement about an entry wound in JFK's head than the original
pathologists who saw the body and the review panels who saw so many more
and better quality photos than I have.
bullet struck the BOH?
declare that it is obvious but why would I do that? People far more
qualified than me who have determined without a doubt that a bullet
entered the back of JFK's head. I believe the red spot is the hole in the
scalp and my guess is that it does not line up with the hole in the skull.
assess the medical evidence than the two techies you put so much faith in
but that doesn't stop you from accepting their word over his.
particularly in this case. Humes is a far more qualified person than
you'll ever be, and since you say you take the word of experts, I showed
you one, and his experience in looking at the 'red spot'. Does it bother
you that I use evidence to get rid of your silly ideas?
Post by bigdog
I am not
relying on my own expertise to assess the medical evidence because I have
none. I am relying on the review panels which were comprised some of the
finest forensic medical examiners in the country. THEY said the wound was
higher than where Humes placed it. The other reason for believing that red
spot is the entrance wound is because somebody went to the trouble of
putting a ruler next to it and having it photographed. What reason would
there have been to do that if not to show the location of the entry
wound.
I believe the reason was to make it look like there was somethingI am not
relying on my own expertise to assess the medical evidence because I have
none. I am relying on the review panels which were comprised some of the
finest forensic medical examiners in the country. THEY said the wound was
higher than where Humes placed it. The other reason for believing that red
spot is the entrance wound is because somebody went to the trouble of
putting a ruler next to it and having it photographed. What reason would
there have been to do that if not to show the location of the entry
wound.
there, even though there wasn't! Apparently the review panels may have
been shown phony evidence, and certainly the 'leaked' autopsy photos are
provably phony. Since the HSCA has on a few occasions helped to cover up
some of the things that gave the scam away, I have lost any faith I may
have had in them. So when Humes said clearly that the 'red spot' was
NOTHING, and that he had seen underneath it and there was no match in the
skull, why didn't you believe him? He was one of the experts there.
Post by bigdog
review panels came to the wrong conclusion and you've come to the right
one. Do you have any idea how funny that is?
do the same but then you would have to give up your cherished beliefs.
should put faith in what you have determined and disregard what every
qualified medical examiner has concluded. You have reached a new low with
that statement.
They did have your opinions. They certainly didn't need them. Who does?
than what the pathologists said they saw even though the findings of the
pathologists have been confirmed by every forensic medical examiner who
has seen the photos and the x-rays of the autopsy. You're going to
completely disregard their opinions because decades later a couple techies
who were in their early 20s and the time and taking part in their first
autopsy of a gunshot victim told a different story. No wonder you're so
hopelessly lost and unable to figure out a crime that the DPD had solved
in the first 12 hours.
reason to put a ruler next to that spot. If you want to believe Humes
testimony that the bullet hole was lower, that would put it beneath JFK's
hair about 4 inches lower than that spot.
can't see.
disputes that the red spot is where the entry wound was. I have more faith
in the HSCA medical examiners because they had lots of experience
performing medico-legal autopsies on gunshot victims and Humes did not. In
a jury trial, laymen on the juries are often faced with conflicting expert
testimony and are tasked with determining which is the more credible.
That's the situation we are in here. Humes was a poor choice to conduct
such an important autopsy but we have to live with that mistake. Despite
the fact he was out of his element, the team did gather sufficient
information through the numerous photos and x-rays that were taken that
would later allow teams of esteemed forensic medical examiners to review
their work and confirm their basic findings that two bullets hit JFK from
behind even though they placed the entry wound in the head higher than
Humes did. They also confirmed the determination that the bullet that
entered the back exited from the throat.
diddly to you when it comes to accepting the contrary opinions of the
techies but now that you want to cherry pick one opinion of Humes, his
word is gospel even though that word has been disputed by far more
qualified people in the area of forensic medicine.
occipital because the forward flaps had been closed over the defect.
believe that red spot is the bullet hole and the only reason I am not
certain of that is because Humes testified it was lower. Weighing his
credentials against the review panes, I'm going with the latter but I'm
willing to allow for the possibility that he is right and they were wrong.
I'm not dumb enough to give you the same benefit.
had, you would be able to cite him saying that. You can't because he
didn't. Your multiple casket arrivals are the product of silly conspiracy
hobbyist figuring which doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
Post by mainframetech
said the
red spot was "nothing", and that it did NOT have an equal hole in the
skull underneath. He certain (as an expert more than you) would have
thought of the mismatch of scalp and skull and considered it, and he saw
NO matching hole in the skull. BTWE, if that photo were of them pulling
the scalp forward to make it look like normal, it did indeed look like
there was NO extra scalp to pull past the bullet hole if there had been
one there.
given enough information, or whatever, so that they made a wrong
conclusion, it's still your job to tell the truth when you see it, or know
about it.
We're supposed to believe all those esteemed medical examiners on severalsaid the
red spot was "nothing", and that it did NOT have an equal hole in the
skull underneath. He certain (as an expert more than you) would have
thought of the mismatch of scalp and skull and considered it, and he saw
NO matching hole in the skull. BTWE, if that photo were of them pulling
the scalp forward to make it look like normal, it did indeed look like
there was NO extra scalp to pull past the bullet hole if there had been
one there.
Post by bigdog
Why would I want to substitute my guess for the unanimous verdict of every
qualified person who has seen far more and better evidence than I have.
It has to do with telling the truth. If they were lazy or were notWhy would I want to substitute my guess for the unanimous verdict of every
qualified person who has seen far more and better evidence than I have.
given enough information, or whatever, so that they made a wrong
conclusion, it's still your job to tell the truth when you see it, or know
about it.
review panels came to the wrong conclusion and you've come to the right
one. Do you have any idea how funny that is?
Post by mainframetech
I'm not blaming them. I'm putting my faith in them. You would be wise toPost by bigdog
the opinions of those who are more qualified than I am and have seen far
more than I have far outweighs any opinion I have. It also outweighs any
opinion you have but since you are so bad at weighing evidence, you can't
figure that out.
Ah, that's your excuse! Blame it on the 'experts'.Post by mainframetech
Wow! No belief in your own WCR! More proof for
me that the WCR is a tired old phony and outmoded. So you try to lay off
the blame on the photo quality, which is just fine for the purpose of
seeing a bullet hole, and you've blamed your lack of courage to look for a
bullet hole on the fact that it's only one photo!
I don't have to blame anything. I know how to weigh evidence and I knowWow! No belief in your own WCR! More proof for
me that the WCR is a tired old phony and outmoded. So you try to lay off
the blame on the photo quality, which is just fine for the purpose of
seeing a bullet hole, and you've blamed your lack of courage to look for a
bullet hole on the fact that it's only one photo!
the opinions of those who are more qualified than I am and have seen far
more than I have far outweighs any opinion I have. It also outweighs any
opinion you have but since you are so bad at weighing evidence, you can't
figure that out.
do the same but then you would have to give up your cherished beliefs.
Post by mainframetech
In actuality,
given that I've told you all that I have seen, you have at your fingertips
all the evidence you need that exceeds the 'experts' and what they knew,
or were allowed to know.
Even for you that is a ridiculously absurd statement. You are telling me IIn actuality,
given that I've told you all that I have seen, you have at your fingertips
all the evidence you need that exceeds the 'experts' and what they knew,
or were allowed to know.
should put faith in what you have determined and disregard what every
qualified medical examiner has concluded. You have reached a new low with
that statement.
They did have your opinions. They certainly didn't need them. Who does?
Post by mainframetech
What was seen in the body with organs
removed, and much else. So the decision to use that info or to throw it
away to save the WCR is completely up to you.
So you continue to put more faith in what the techies said they saw ratherWhat was seen in the body with organs
removed, and much else. So the decision to use that info or to throw it
away to save the WCR is completely up to you.
than what the pathologists said they saw even though the findings of the
pathologists have been confirmed by every forensic medical examiner who
has seen the photos and the x-rays of the autopsy. You're going to
completely disregard their opinions because decades later a couple techies
who were in their early 20s and the time and taking part in their first
autopsy of a gunshot victim told a different story. No wonder you're so
hopelessly lost and unable to figure out a crime that the DPD had solved
in the first 12 hours.
Post by mainframetech
bullet hole. And the area described by the pathologists was there in the
photo. But...no bullet hole!
The bullet hole is next to the ruler in the photo. That would be the onlyPost by bigdog
bullet hole that every qualified medical examiner determined was there and
was a wound of entry.
Oh? Well, where is it? The photo was just fine quality to show aPost by mainframetech
Failed excuses! Your
lack of courage means that there is NO bullet hole there in that photo,
and we both know the reason. There was no bullet hole in the BOH, and the
photo is a phony in either case. One more for the CT scorecard.
Whatever you may think about my lack of courage it doesn't erase theFailed excuses! Your
lack of courage means that there is NO bullet hole there in that photo,
and we both know the reason. There was no bullet hole in the BOH, and the
photo is a phony in either case. One more for the CT scorecard.
bullet hole that every qualified medical examiner determined was there and
was a wound of entry.
bullet hole. And the area described by the pathologists was there in the
photo. But...no bullet hole!
reason to put a ruler next to that spot. If you want to believe Humes
testimony that the bullet hole was lower, that would put it beneath JFK's
hair about 4 inches lower than that spot.
Post by mainframetech
showing a bullet hole, had there been one there. As L'il Abner used to
say, 'any fool can plainly see' that if it was there, we could all see it.
Any fool can see a bullet hole in the forehead/temple that sensible peoplePost by bigdog
the photos online aren't nearly as good as the originals which the review
panels have seen.
I know that the photo in question of the BIOH was perfectly fie forPost by mainframetech
If you were any good at weighing evidence, you would know the quality ofPost by bigdog
I don't need to see the bullet hole. Extremely qualified people who saw
many more and better photos as well as x-rays saw it. They don't need me
to confirm their findings.
Ah! Still blaming the photo quality.I don't need to see the bullet hole. Extremely qualified people who saw
many more and better photos as well as x-rays saw it. They don't need me
to confirm their findings.
the photos online aren't nearly as good as the originals which the review
panels have seen.
showing a bullet hole, had there been one there. As L'il Abner used to
say, 'any fool can plainly see' that if it was there, we could all see it.
can't see.
Post by mainframetech
didn't dare look.
The only reason I have wavered at all is due to Humes testimony. HePost by bigdog
you have come by most of your knowledge. You just assumed it.
I'm not hearing a positive statement so I'm still assuming that youPost by mainframetech
But you haven't even looked at
the photo so how would you know the quality is bad? I think the quality
is just fine to see a bullet hole, if there was one there.
Who told you I hadn't looked at the photo? Oh, that's right. The same wayBut you haven't even looked at
the photo so how would you know the quality is bad? I think the quality
is just fine to see a bullet hole, if there was one there.
you have come by most of your knowledge. You just assumed it.
didn't dare look.
disputes that the red spot is where the entry wound was. I have more faith
in the HSCA medical examiners because they had lots of experience
performing medico-legal autopsies on gunshot victims and Humes did not. In
a jury trial, laymen on the juries are often faced with conflicting expert
testimony and are tasked with determining which is the more credible.
That's the situation we are in here. Humes was a poor choice to conduct
such an important autopsy but we have to live with that mistake. Despite
the fact he was out of his element, the team did gather sufficient
information through the numerous photos and x-rays that were taken that
would later allow teams of esteemed forensic medical examiners to review
their work and confirm their basic findings that two bullets hit JFK from
behind even though they placed the entry wound in the head higher than
Humes did. They also confirmed the determination that the bullet that
entered the back exited from the throat.
Post by mainframetech
your level of knowledge,
But not as knowledgeable as the review panels,Post by bigdog
and I and many others believe that is the bullet hole. I can't be certain
that is the bullet hole because I'm not qualified to make such judgements
and I have seen only that one photo. People who are qualified and have
seen so much more have determined there is an entry wound in the BOH and
that is good enough for me. Obviously nothing would be good enough for
you.
The answer to the 'red spot' is simple. Humes, an expert far abovePost by mainframetech
hole right where the pathologists said there was supposed to be one.
Who said no one can see a bullet hole. There is a red spot in the photoPost by bigdog
that of the original pathology team and all the review panels. Is there no
end to your silliness. Apparently not.
Well, you might want to try and explain why no one can see a bulletPost by mainframetech
I never
heard you comment after looking, or did you avoid looking too so you could
have 'plausible denial'? It doesn't take experts to see that there is no
bullet hole in the BOH of that photo, and one photo is all that's needed
to tell that there's no bullet hole.
Amazing how you think by looking at one photo your opinion should trumpI never
heard you comment after looking, or did you avoid looking too so you could
have 'plausible denial'? It doesn't take experts to see that there is no
bullet hole in the BOH of that photo, and one photo is all that's needed
to tell that there's no bullet hole.
that of the original pathology team and all the review panels. Is there no
end to your silliness. Apparently not.
hole right where the pathologists said there was supposed to be one.
and I and many others believe that is the bullet hole. I can't be certain
that is the bullet hole because I'm not qualified to make such judgements
and I have seen only that one photo. People who are qualified and have
seen so much more have determined there is an entry wound in the BOH and
that is good enough for me. Obviously nothing would be good enough for
you.
your level of knowledge,
Post by mainframetech
has said the 'red spot' was NOTHING and he also
said that there was no matching hole in the skull beneath the scalp. So
we've done away with the 'red spot'. On to your next excuse.
Your double standards are truly amazing. Humes's qualifications don't meanhas said the 'red spot' was NOTHING and he also
said that there was no matching hole in the skull beneath the scalp. So
we've done away with the 'red spot'. On to your next excuse.
diddly to you when it comes to accepting the contrary opinions of the
techies but now that you want to cherry pick one opinion of Humes, his
word is gospel even though that word has been disputed by far more
qualified people in the area of forensic medicine.
Post by mainframetech
Oh, you think they just forgot to mention it. <chuckle>Post by bigdog
How would you know?
It's fine for imagining you see bullet holes.
That's what all the knowledgeable people have said. Then we have your
opinion.
WRONG! NO expert said that there is no bullet hole in the forehead.Post by mainframetech
But
of course, you don't want to get too deep into this, because there is only
one final answer.
Yes there is. Oswald did it.But
of course, you don't want to get too deep into this, because there is only
one final answer.
How would you know?
It's fine for imagining you see bullet holes.
Post by mainframetech
One photo of the right area is all that is
needed to determine if there is a bullet hole there or not.
There is a bullet hole in the BOH and no bullet hole in the forehead.One photo of the right area is all that is
needed to determine if there is a bullet hole there or not.
That's what all the knowledgeable people have said. Then we have your
opinion.
Post by mainframetech
elsewhere.
They probably only saw the portion of the defect that extended into thePost by bigdog
parietal.
Nope, they said the 'large hole' was in the BOH, not the side orPost by mainframetech
eyewitnesses all corroborated each other that the 'large hole' was there.
There was a large hole that extended into occipital bone but was chieflyPost by bigdog
claims there was a blowout in the BOH. I know better.
Ah! That means that you have some explanation for why over 39Post by mainframetech
As well, you haven't found any explanation for there to be hair all
over the BOH, when over 39 eyewitnesses said they saw a 'large hole'
there. Many of them were medically trained and knew what they were
describing.
You are the one who needs to explain that conundrum. You are the one whoAs well, you haven't found any explanation for there to be hair all
over the BOH, when over 39 eyewitnesses said they saw a 'large hole'
there. Many of them were medically trained and knew what they were
describing.
claims there was a blowout in the BOH. I know better.
eyewitnesses all corroborated each other that the 'large hole' was there.
parietal.
elsewhere.
occipital because the forward flaps had been closed over the defect.
Post by mainframetech
BOH, you're going to cop out and rely on 'experts'!
That isn't obvious at all. I can see what I believe to be the bullet hole.Post by bigdog
knowledgeable people have concluded. You are not competent to render such
judgements and you have seen a fraction of the evidence.
So even though it's obvious that you can't see any bullet hole in thePost by mainframetech
given by the pathologists for locations are all within the confines of the
photo in question, so why would the bullet hole not be there? The photo
quality is very good so that's not an excuse. I think you've just proved
that there is no bullet hole in the BOH.
You can carry on all you want. Your opinion doesn't stack up against whatPost by bigdog
isn't, it is elsewhere. I'm not going to dismiss the unanimous opinion of
every medical examiner who saw so much more evidence than I have just
because I don't see an obvious bullet hole. Why would you do so?
"obvious bullet hole"? Then why can't it be seen? The variationsPost by mainframetech
I'm having a hard time believing that you fell for that, since it was
"Humes’ comments regarding the supposed higher wound during his
HSCA testimony are particularly telling. After several failed attempts to
get both Humes and Boswell to agree the inshoot was high, the
HSCA’s Charles Petty, MD had another go with Humes, this time
concerning the possibility a red spot in the autopsy photos visible at the
top of JFK’s otherwise pristine rear scalp was the inshoot. Gazing
together at the photograph showing the all but unblemished rear of
“I don’t know what that [red spot] is. No. 1, I can assure
you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no
defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don’t
know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don’t, I
just don’t know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance.”
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm
As I said, I don't know whether that red spot is the bullet hole. If itI'm having a hard time believing that you fell for that, since it was
"Humes’ comments regarding the supposed higher wound during his
HSCA testimony are particularly telling. After several failed attempts to
get both Humes and Boswell to agree the inshoot was high, the
HSCA’s Charles Petty, MD had another go with Humes, this time
concerning the possibility a red spot in the autopsy photos visible at the
top of JFK’s otherwise pristine rear scalp was the inshoot. Gazing
together at the photograph showing the all but unblemished rear of
“I don’t know what that [red spot] is. No. 1, I can assure
you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no
defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don’t
know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don’t, I
just don’t know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance.”
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm
isn't, it is elsewhere. I'm not going to dismiss the unanimous opinion of
every medical examiner who saw so much more evidence than I have just
because I don't see an obvious bullet hole. Why would you do so?
given by the pathologists for locations are all within the confines of the
photo in question, so why would the bullet hole not be there? The photo
quality is very good so that's not an excuse. I think you've just proved
that there is no bullet hole in the BOH.
knowledgeable people have concluded. You are not competent to render such
judgements and you have seen a fraction of the evidence.
BOH, you're going to cop out and rely on 'experts'!
Post by mainframetech
the emperor has no clothes! Some weigher of evidence you turned out to
be.
You keep insisting I don't see the bullet hole. I have said repeatedly IPost by bigdog
the review panels saw or if the bullet hole showed up elsewhere in the
other photos they looked at. It is possible the entry wound could be
covered by JFK's hair. That's why I'm not dumb enough to think I can look
at one photo and think I can make a better determination than the review
panels. Apparently that isn't a problem for you.
So no one can se the bullet hole in the BOH, but you don't dare sayPost by mainframetech
simple bullet hole.
It probably does but I can't be certain that red spot is the bullet holePost by bigdog
the review panels who saw so much more. Absurd.
What's absurd is your attempt to pretend that the photo can't show aPost by mainframetech
expert to determine if there was a bullet-sized hole in the BOH. Anyone
can see plainly that there is no such thing.
So you think by looking at one photo you can make a better judgement thanPost by bigdog
What I do know is that at scalp had been pulled away from the
skull and if it was pulled back up for that picture, it may not have lined
up with the hole in the scalp making the hole harder to see. It's also
possible the entry wound is hidden under the hair. In any case, it would
be very silly of me to think with my complete lack of training in forensic
medicine that I could look at one photo and make a better determination
than the three pathologists who conducted the autopsy and teams of the
best medical examiners in the country who got to see far more and better
quality photos and x-rays than I have. What kind of moron would do
something like that?
The moron would be the one that thought that it would have to take anWhat I do know is that at scalp had been pulled away from the
skull and if it was pulled back up for that picture, it may not have lined
up with the hole in the scalp making the hole harder to see. It's also
possible the entry wound is hidden under the hair. In any case, it would
be very silly of me to think with my complete lack of training in forensic
medicine that I could look at one photo and make a better determination
than the three pathologists who conducted the autopsy and teams of the
best medical examiners in the country who got to see far more and better
quality photos and x-rays than I have. What kind of moron would do
something like that?
expert to determine if there was a bullet-sized hole in the BOH. Anyone
can see plainly that there is no such thing.
the review panels who saw so much more. Absurd.
simple bullet hole.
the review panels saw or if the bullet hole showed up elsewhere in the
other photos they looked at. It is possible the entry wound could be
covered by JFK's hair. That's why I'm not dumb enough to think I can look
at one photo and think I can make a better determination than the review
panels. Apparently that isn't a problem for you.
the emperor has no clothes! Some weigher of evidence you turned out to
be.
believe that red spot is the bullet hole and the only reason I am not
certain of that is because Humes testified it was lower. Weighing his
credentials against the review panes, I'm going with the latter but I'm
willing to allow for the possibility that he is right and they were wrong.
I'm not dumb enough to give you the same benefit.
Post by mainframetech
photo in question.
Why would I say something that isn't true?Post by bigdog
LOL! Chicken! Just say it. You can't see any hole in the BOH in thePost by mainframetech
This is not rocket science. It's a simple hole in
the BOH in a photo. So where is it?
Where the review panels said. In the BOH.This is not rocket science. It's a simple hole in
the BOH in a photo. So where is it?
photo in question.
Post by mainframetech
Not much to dispute either.Post by bigdog
talking about.
LOL! Not much to grab on to in that sentence.Post by mainframetech
Sherlock! If the photo was legitimate, then there is NO hole in the BOH.
But if the photo is altered, then we're dealing with altered evidence,
which means the possibility that the panels were shown the phony photos so
that they would come to the wrong conclusion as to the cause of death. A
bullet from above and behind.
Then there is the correct explanation. You just don't know what you arePost by bigdog
the BOH. Brilliant work, Sherlock. Did the people who altered the photo to
hide the big hole forget to alter it to show a little hole?
Sounds like you figured it out all by yourself! Excellent workPost by mainframetech
which you tend to do. I've pointed out that the photo of the BOH was
altered, and there is no doubt about it.
Oh, so you are using a altered photo to prove there was no entry wound inPost by bigdog
You are making a big deal about not being able to see a small entry wound
in the BOH. Apparently it doesn't bother you that the large blowout in the
BOH that you claim was there doesn't show up in that photo either. Got any
explanation for that?
Of course! I've addressed that recently. You probably missed it,You are making a big deal about not being able to see a small entry wound
in the BOH. Apparently it doesn't bother you that the large blowout in the
BOH that you claim was there doesn't show up in that photo either. Got any
explanation for that?
which you tend to do. I've pointed out that the photo of the BOH was
altered, and there is no doubt about it.
the BOH. Brilliant work, Sherlock. Did the people who altered the photo to
hide the big hole forget to alter it to show a little hole?
Sherlock! If the photo was legitimate, then there is NO hole in the BOH.
But if the photo is altered, then we're dealing with altered evidence,
which means the possibility that the panels were shown the phony photos so
that they would come to the wrong conclusion as to the cause of death. A
bullet from above and behind.
talking about.
Post by mainframetech
'swamp post' and repetitive to boot. I'm outa here.
Dennis David did not say he saw 2 caskets arrive and you know it. If hePost by bigdog
assassination that is pretty much irrelevant.
believe about the assassination. My arguments haven't moved the needle of
public opinion.
arrive. Name ONE person who said he saw two.
Dennis David was the proof of 2 caskets arriving, and this is aPost by mainframetech
you all about is supported by 40% of the US population,
Since most people who don't know the most rudimentary facts of thePost by bigdog
stated that seriously. Amazing these klutzes who masterminded this
conspiracy did so many dumb things yet still pulled it off and have gotten
away with it all these years. They couldn't hire competent gunmen. They
didn't give them decent ammo. They put an army of shooters in Dealey Plaza
and then tried to blame one man. They planted a bullet at Parkland but put
it on the wrong gurney. They sent a guy to kill Oswald but he didn't get
there at the announced time of the transfer. They played a ridiculous game
of musical caskets at Bethesda instead of just having the pathologists
falsify the report. You claim they falsified the BOH photo but forgot to
put in an entrance wound. They forgot to alter the photo that shows a
bullet hole in the forehead/temple. All this and about a dozen other
things that I've forgotten about. You have to believe they made all these
mistakes and yet still got away with the crime of the century. It is truly
amazing the things you are willing to convince yourself of to fool
yourself into believing in a non-existent conspiracy.
You seem to have forgotten something else. That phony story I've toldPost by mainframetech
Sworn testimony says there was a
'large hole' there, and yet the photo shows what the original government
report told about, which was no large hole in the BOH. Whoever altered
the autopsy photos forgot to put in the bullet hole,
I suggested that facetiously before I read your comment in which youSworn testimony says there was a
'large hole' there, and yet the photo shows what the original government
report told about, which was no large hole in the BOH. Whoever altered
the autopsy photos forgot to put in the bullet hole,
stated that seriously. Amazing these klutzes who masterminded this
conspiracy did so many dumb things yet still pulled it off and have gotten
away with it all these years. They couldn't hire competent gunmen. They
didn't give them decent ammo. They put an army of shooters in Dealey Plaza
and then tried to blame one man. They planted a bullet at Parkland but put
it on the wrong gurney. They sent a guy to kill Oswald but he didn't get
there at the announced time of the transfer. They played a ridiculous game
of musical caskets at Bethesda instead of just having the pathologists
falsify the report. You claim they falsified the BOH photo but forgot to
put in an entrance wound. They forgot to alter the photo that shows a
bullet hole in the forehead/temple. All this and about a dozen other
things that I've forgotten about. You have to believe they made all these
mistakes and yet still got away with the crime of the century. It is truly
amazing the things you are willing to convince yourself of to fool
yourself into believing in a non-existent conspiracy.
you all about is supported by 40% of the US population,
assassination that is pretty much irrelevant.
Post by mainframetech
and some folks
have kept arguing for the phony story for 50 years and more. That means
the true story has less traction and is an uphill battle for belief of the
evidence. In effect, YOU are the reason that all the info you've listed
above is hard for some people to believe is because you go around arguing
for the tired old WCR.
99.999999% of the people in this country aren't even aware of what Iand some folks
have kept arguing for the phony story for 50 years and more. That means
the true story has less traction and is an uphill battle for belief of the
evidence. In effect, YOU are the reason that all the info you've listed
above is hard for some people to believe is because you go around arguing
for the tired old WCR.
believe about the assassination. My arguments haven't moved the needle of
public opinion.
Post by mainframetech
nut' killer, so what else could they conclude?
That there was no conspiracy which would have been the correct answer.Post by bigdog
drawings for the HSCA. They had the HSCA continue with the cover up but
forgot to tell them to conclude that there was only one shooter. What
morons.
The evidence that was left to look at would suggest only one 'lonePost by mainframetech
but they didn't
forget to tell Ida Dox to put it in to her drawing of the original photo.
Talk about hilarious! The drawing has a bullet hole, and the photo it
came from has nothing! LOL!
Oh, so they were still engineering the cover up when Ida Dox produced thebut they didn't
forget to tell Ida Dox to put it in to her drawing of the original photo.
Talk about hilarious! The drawing has a bullet hole, and the photo it
came from has nothing! LOL!
drawings for the HSCA. They had the HSCA continue with the cover up but
forgot to tell them to conclude that there was only one shooter. What
morons.
nut' killer, so what else could they conclude?
Post by mainframetech
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
questions to get to the same truth. Think it through.
Obviously you haven't or you wouldn't have made a such a silly argument.http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
Post by bigdog
different questions.
Depends on the questions. It's very possible to ask differentPost by mainframetech
Yes it does so I ask you again. Why would you expect the same answers toPost by bigdog
Depends on the questions.Post by mainframetech
see the difference. And it's not due to different questions.
Why would you expect him to give the same answers to different questions?Post by bigdog
Both were interviews and the questions were different so naturally the
answers would be different.
Oh, get away! His 2 statements did not agree, and it is simple toPost by mainframetech
Go ahead, look for the bullet entry! When you can't find it, you'll
have to call Lipsey a liar.
And don't forget his mismatch in his HSCA statement and his video.
More lies.
There were no lies in either of the two statements. They are compatible.Go ahead, look for the bullet entry! When you can't find it, you'll
have to call Lipsey a liar.
And don't forget his mismatch in his HSCA statement and his video.
More lies.
Both were interviews and the questions were different so naturally the
answers would be different.
see the difference. And it's not due to different questions.
different questions.
questions to get to the same truth. Think it through.
Post by mainframetech
No you haven't. All the witnesses you cited only said they saw one casketPost by bigdog
caskets arrived at different times. You still can't.
I have done so, and you ignored the proof.Post by mainframetech
If I am wrong you should be able to point to a witness that said twoPost by bigdog
who weighed in described one casket.
WRONG!Post by mainframetech
there were 2 caskets and they arrived at different times, and you still
try to pretend that the evidence didn't happen! That's weird! You base
your imaginary story on guesses as to road conditions, and speed of
driving, when you have flat statements of what had transpired in reality.
And of course, you've left out the time spent at the main entrance while
the family got out of the ambulance.
There is no sworn testimony by anyone that two caskets arrived. EverybodyPost by bigdog
imaginary shipping casket to get to Bethesda 42 minute before the bronze
casket. For one it's only a 40 minute drive from Andrews to Bethesda and
that is if you don't have a police escort. The ambulance had a huge head
start on any shipping casket that would have been unloaded from AF1 after
all the cameras and witnesses had left the area. Even if the shipping
casket had been sent to Bethesda by teleportation, it could not have
arrived 42 minutes before the bronze casket.
I wonder about you. You get sworn testimony and corroboration thatPost by mainframetech
Now here's a final statement from Lipsey, since you're so determined to
"The ceremonial troop in Washington had been arranged to meet the body at
Andrews. Put it in a hearse. We had a decoy hearse because we knew there
was a mob waiting at Bethesda Naval Hospital. So we got in a couple of
these helicopters with our honor guard when they left and flew over to the
hospital to get there before they did. And when they came in, one of the
hearses went right up to the front door. All of the crowd, of course,
rushed over there. The one with the body in it went around to the back
where the morgue was and we unloaded it. We met them in the back and
unloaded it right there to avoid the news media and the crowd and
everything else."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
And while Lipsey said the casket went by road, there was no choice that
it went by helicopter because it got to the morgue 42 minutes BEFORE the
empty Bronze casket. Lipsey has clearly said there were 2 ambulances, one
was 'decoy', and one went to the back door with the body, and the other
went to the main entrance.
I've showed you the time line that would have made it impossible for yourNow here's a final statement from Lipsey, since you're so determined to
"The ceremonial troop in Washington had been arranged to meet the body at
Andrews. Put it in a hearse. We had a decoy hearse because we knew there
was a mob waiting at Bethesda Naval Hospital. So we got in a couple of
these helicopters with our honor guard when they left and flew over to the
hospital to get there before they did. And when they came in, one of the
hearses went right up to the front door. All of the crowd, of course,
rushed over there. The one with the body in it went around to the back
where the morgue was and we unloaded it. We met them in the back and
unloaded it right there to avoid the news media and the crowd and
everything else."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
And while Lipsey said the casket went by road, there was no choice that
it went by helicopter because it got to the morgue 42 minutes BEFORE the
empty Bronze casket. Lipsey has clearly said there were 2 ambulances, one
was 'decoy', and one went to the back door with the body, and the other
went to the main entrance.
imaginary shipping casket to get to Bethesda 42 minute before the bronze
casket. For one it's only a 40 minute drive from Andrews to Bethesda and
that is if you don't have a police escort. The ambulance had a huge head
start on any shipping casket that would have been unloaded from AF1 after
all the cameras and witnesses had left the area. Even if the shipping
casket had been sent to Bethesda by teleportation, it could not have
arrived 42 minutes before the bronze casket.
there were 2 caskets and they arrived at different times, and you still
try to pretend that the evidence didn't happen! That's weird! You base
your imaginary story on guesses as to road conditions, and speed of
driving, when you have flat statements of what had transpired in reality.
And of course, you've left out the time spent at the main entrance while
the family got out of the ambulance.
who weighed in described one casket.
caskets arrived at different times. You still can't.
arrive. Name ONE person who said he saw two.
'swamp post' and repetitive to boot. I'm outa here.
had, you would be able to cite him saying that. You can't because he
didn't. Your multiple casket arrivals are the product of silly conspiracy
hobbyist figuring which doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
bigdog
2018-07-27 21:11:13 UTC
Post by mainframetech
particularly in this case.
Of course they do. They matter to all sensible people but not conspiracyPost by bigdog
assess the medical evidence than the two techies you put so much faith in
but that doesn't stop you from accepting their word over his.
WRONG! You still don't get it! Qualifications matter to YOU,Post by mainframetech
Oh, so now qualifications matter to you. Humes was far more qualified toPost by bigdog
declare that it is obvious but why would I do that? People far more
qualified than me who have determined without a doubt that a bullet
entered the back of JFK's head. I believe the red spot is the hole in the
scalp and my guess is that it does not line up with the hole in the skull.
WRONG! Humes, who was certainly far more qualified than you,Post by mainframetech
bullet struck the BOH?
I could take a cue from you and pretend to see a bullet hole and thenPost by bigdog
better judgement about an entry wound in JFK's head than the original
pathologists who saw the body and the review panels who saw so many more
and better quality photos than I have.
LOL! Not willing to take the challenge when you're so sure that aPost by mainframetech
of what I saw is somehow more right?
I know it is.Post by bigdog
the findings of the 3 pathologists who had the body in front of them as
well as teams of highly qualified review panels who saw so many more
photos as well as x-rays.
WRONG as usual! So you think your amateur opinion of my flat statementPost by mainframetech
DON'T GIVE ME THAT COVERUP CRAP! The photo of the BOH that we have is
perfectly valid and clear for the purpose of seeing a bullet hole. But
there is none there. The photo shows the areas where the pathologists
said the bullet hole was located, but there's nothing there. And you
won't want to hear it, but the photo of the BOH is also very WRONG, since
there were over 39 eyewitnesses that there was a 'large hole' in the BOH,
right where the photo shows hair and no hole. Not only do the photos show
falseness in the reporting, but they prove they were altered as well. If
the medical examiners saw those photos, then there's no doubt they got the
wrong conclusions as to the cause of death. Naturally, the LNs reading
this will ignore completely the photographic proof just shown.
So you think your amateurish opinion based on looking at one photo trumpsDON'T GIVE ME THAT COVERUP CRAP! The photo of the BOH that we have is
perfectly valid and clear for the purpose of seeing a bullet hole. But
there is none there. The photo shows the areas where the pathologists
said the bullet hole was located, but there's nothing there. And you
won't want to hear it, but the photo of the BOH is also very WRONG, since
there were over 39 eyewitnesses that there was a 'large hole' in the BOH,
right where the photo shows hair and no hole. Not only do the photos show
falseness in the reporting, but they prove they were altered as well. If
the medical examiners saw those photos, then there's no doubt they got the
wrong conclusions as to the cause of death. Naturally, the LNs reading
this will ignore completely the photographic proof just shown.
the findings of the 3 pathologists who had the body in front of them as
well as teams of highly qualified review panels who saw so many more
photos as well as x-rays.
of what I saw is somehow more right?
Post by mainframetech
Then why didn't you take the
challenge when I first made it, to point out the bullet hole location
using the information from the pathologists as to the location of the
bullet hole?
I'm not dumb enough to think by looking at one photo that I can make aThen why didn't you take the
challenge when I first made it, to point out the bullet hole location
using the information from the pathologists as to the location of the
bullet hole?
better judgement about an entry wound in JFK's head than the original
pathologists who saw the body and the review panels who saw so many more
and better quality photos than I have.
bullet struck the BOH?
declare that it is obvious but why would I do that? People far more
qualified than me who have determined without a doubt that a bullet
entered the back of JFK's head. I believe the red spot is the hole in the
scalp and my guess is that it does not line up with the hole in the skull.
assess the medical evidence than the two techies you put so much faith in
but that doesn't stop you from accepting their word over his.
particularly in this case.
hobbyists. The only thing that matters to them is whether a witness told a
story that fits with what they want to believe. I have no doubt you would
have cited the janitor if he had offered an opinion that fit your
narrative.
Post by mainframetech
Humes is a far more qualified person than
you'll ever be, and since you say you take the word of experts, I showed
you one, and his experience in looking at the 'red spot'. Does it bother
you that I use evidence to get rid of your silly ideas?
He was refuted by other experts who had far more experience in gunshotHumes is a far more qualified person than
you'll ever be, and since you say you take the word of experts, I showed
you one, and his experience in looking at the 'red spot'. Does it bother
you that I use evidence to get rid of your silly ideas?
wound autopsies than Humes. His experience was as a general pathologist
which means he dealt manly with deceased bodies of people who succumbed to
cancer, heart disease and other ailments. There is conflicting opinions
among the various experts as to whether the original placement or the HSCA
placement was correct. I believe the BOH photo does show the entry wound
in the scalp but I also believe the scalp is being pulled up and does not
line up with the hole in the skull and shows it to be higher than it
actually was.
Post by mainframetech
there, even though there wasn't!
Why would they do that. What good would it do to place a ruler next toPost by bigdog
I am not
relying on my own expertise to assess the medical evidence because I have
none. I am relying on the review panels which were comprised some of the
finest forensic medical examiners in the country. THEY said the wound was
higher than where Humes placed it. The other reason for believing that red
spot is the entrance wound is because somebody went to the trouble of
putting a ruler next to it and having it photographed. What reason would
there have been to do that if not to show the location of the entry
wound.
I believe the reason was to make it look like there was somethingI am not
relying on my own expertise to assess the medical evidence because I have
none. I am relying on the review panels which were comprised some of the
finest forensic medical examiners in the country. THEY said the wound was
higher than where Humes placed it. The other reason for believing that red
spot is the entrance wound is because somebody went to the trouble of
putting a ruler next to it and having it photographed. What reason would
there have been to do that if not to show the location of the entry
wound.
there, even though there wasn't!
something that wasn't there?
Post by mainframetech
Apparently the review panels may have
been shown phony evidence, and certainly the 'leaked' autopsy photos are
provably phony.
Because you say so.Apparently the review panels may have
been shown phony evidence, and certainly the 'leaked' autopsy photos are
provably phony.
Post by mainframetech
Since the HSCA has on a few occasions helped to cover up
some of the things that gave the scam away, I have lost any faith I may
have had in them.
You mean like when they said there was a probable conspiracy. Yes, thatSince the HSCA has on a few occasions helped to cover up
some of the things that gave the scam away, I have lost any faith I may
have had in them.
was FUBAR.
Post by mainframetech
So when Humes said clearly that the 'red spot' was
NOTHING, and that he had seen underneath it and there was no match in the
skull, why didn't you believe him? He was one of the experts there.
Because other people who saw not only that photo but many others said thatSo when Humes said clearly that the 'red spot' was
NOTHING, and that he had seen underneath it and there was no match in the
skull, why didn't you believe him? He was one of the experts there.
was the entry wound and the presence of the ruler would seem to confirm
that.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-26 14:52:14 UTC
Post by mainframetech
You mean like a janitor?Post by bigdog
declare that it is obvious but why would I do that? People far more
qualified than me who have determined without a doubt that a bullet
entered the back of JFK's head. I believe the red spot is the hole in the
scalp and my guess is that it does not line up with the hole in the skull.
WRONG! Humes, who was certainly far more qualified than you, said thePost by mainframetech
bullet struck the BOH?
I could take a cue from you and pretend to see a bullet hole and thenPost by bigdog
better judgement about an entry wound in JFK's head than the original
pathologists who saw the body and the review panels who saw so many more
and better quality photos than I have.
LOL! Not willing to take the challenge when you're so sure that aPost by mainframetech
of what I saw is somehow more right?
I know it is.Post by bigdog
the findings of the 3 pathologists who had the body in front of them as
well as teams of highly qualified review panels who saw so many more
photos as well as x-rays.
WRONG as usual! So you think your amateur opinion of my flat statementPost by mainframetech
DON'T GIVE ME THAT COVERUP CRAP! The photo of the BOH that we have is
perfectly valid and clear for the purpose of seeing a bullet hole. But
there is none there. The photo shows the areas where the pathologists
said the bullet hole was located, but there's nothing there. And you
won't want to hear it, but the photo of the BOH is also very WRONG, since
there were over 39 eyewitnesses that there was a 'large hole' in the BOH,
right where the photo shows hair and no hole. Not only do the photos show
falseness in the reporting, but they prove they were altered as well. If
the medical examiners saw those photos, then there's no doubt they got the
wrong conclusions as to the cause of death. Naturally, the LNs reading
this will ignore completely the photographic proof just shown.
So you think your amateurish opinion based on looking at one photo trumpsDON'T GIVE ME THAT COVERUP CRAP! The photo of the BOH that we have is
perfectly valid and clear for the purpose of seeing a bullet hole. But
there is none there. The photo shows the areas where the pathologists
said the bullet hole was located, but there's nothing there. And you
won't want to hear it, but the photo of the BOH is also very WRONG, since
there were over 39 eyewitnesses that there was a 'large hole' in the BOH,
right where the photo shows hair and no hole. Not only do the photos show
falseness in the reporting, but they prove they were altered as well. If
the medical examiners saw those photos, then there's no doubt they got the
wrong conclusions as to the cause of death. Naturally, the LNs reading
this will ignore completely the photographic proof just shown.
the findings of the 3 pathologists who had the body in front of them as
well as teams of highly qualified review panels who saw so many more
photos as well as x-rays.
of what I saw is somehow more right?
Post by mainframetech
Then why didn't you take the
challenge when I first made it, to point out the bullet hole location
using the information from the pathologists as to the location of the
bullet hole?
I'm not dumb enough to think by looking at one photo that I can make aThen why didn't you take the
challenge when I first made it, to point out the bullet hole location
using the information from the pathologists as to the location of the
bullet hole?
better judgement about an entry wound in JFK's head than the original
pathologists who saw the body and the review panels who saw so many more
and better quality photos than I have.
bullet struck the BOH?
declare that it is obvious but why would I do that? People far more
qualified than me who have determined without a doubt that a bullet
entered the back of JFK's head. I believe the red spot is the hole in the
scalp and my guess is that it does not line up with the hole in the skull.
Not exactly. He said it was a blood clot.
He also said that brain matter was oozing out of the bullet hole near
the hairline. That turned out to be a dab of yellow fat tissue ON TOP of
the hair.
Some expert witness you got there. At least if they were The Three
Stooges he would be Moe.
Post by mainframetech
skull underneath. He certain (as an expert more than you) would have
thought of the mismatch of scalp and skull and considered it, and he saw
You mean so expert that he said there was no exit wound for the bulletskull underneath. He certain (as an expert more than you) would have
thought of the mismatch of scalp and skull and considered it, and he saw
because it was an ICE BULLET? Did you fall for that?
Post by mainframetech
NO matching hole in the skull. BTWE, if that photo were of them pulling
the scalp forward to make it look like normal, it did indeed look like
there was NO extra scalp to pull past the bullet hole if there had been
one there.
Now, wait a minute. That makes too much sense. You can't tell themNO matching hole in the skull. BTWE, if that photo were of them pulling
the scalp forward to make it look like normal, it did indeed look like
there was NO extra scalp to pull past the bullet hole if there had been
one there.
things like that.
Post by mainframetech
given enough information, or whatever, so that they made a wrong
conclusion, it's still your job to tell the truth when you see it, or know
about it.
How can they tell the truth when they're too stupid to know it?Post by bigdog
Why would I want to substitute my guess for the unanimous verdict of every
qualified person who has seen far more and better evidence than I have.
It has to do with telling the truth. If they were lazy or were notWhy would I want to substitute my guess for the unanimous verdict of every
qualified person who has seen far more and better evidence than I have.
given enough information, or whatever, so that they made a wrong
conclusion, it's still your job to tell the truth when you see it, or know
about it.
Post by mainframetech
given that I've told you all that I have seen, you have at your fingertips
all the evidence you need that exceeds the 'experts' and what they knew,
or were allowed to know. So any decision you made is with all the info
that the experts did NOT have! What was seen in the body with organs
removed, and much else. So the decision to use that info or to throw it
away to save the WCR is completely up to you.
Ice Bullet?Post by bigdog
the opinions of those who are more qualified than I am and have seen far
more than I have far outweighs any opinion I have. It also outweighs any
opinion you have but since you are so bad at weighing evidence, you can't
figure that out.
Ah, that's your excuse! Blame it on the 'experts'. In actuality,Post by mainframetech
Wow! No belief in your own WCR! More proof for
me that the WCR is a tired old phony and outmoded. So you try to lay off
the blame on the photo quality, which is just fine for the purpose of
seeing a bullet hole, and you've blamed your lack of courage to look for a
bullet hole on the fact that it's only one photo!
I don't have to blame anything. I know how to weigh evidence and I knowWow! No belief in your own WCR! More proof for
me that the WCR is a tired old phony and outmoded. So you try to lay off
the blame on the photo quality, which is just fine for the purpose of
seeing a bullet hole, and you've blamed your lack of courage to look for a
bullet hole on the fact that it's only one photo!
the opinions of those who are more qualified than I am and have seen far
more than I have far outweighs any opinion I have. It also outweighs any
opinion you have but since you are so bad at weighing evidence, you can't
figure that out.
given that I've told you all that I have seen, you have at your fingertips
all the evidence you need that exceeds the 'experts' and what they knew,
or were allowed to know. So any decision you made is with all the info
that the experts did NOT have! What was seen in the body with organs
removed, and much else. So the decision to use that info or to throw it
away to save the WCR is completely up to you.
Post by mainframetech
bullet hole. And the area described by the pathologists was there in the
photo. But...no bullet hole!
Which bullet hole?Post by bigdog
bullet hole that every qualified medical examiner determined was there and
was a wound of entry.
Oh? Well, where is it? The photo was just fine quality to show aPost by mainframetech
Failed excuses! Your
lack of courage means that there is NO bullet hole there in that photo,
and we both know the reason. There was no bullet hole in the BOH, and the
photo is a phony in either case. One more for the CT scorecard.
Whatever you may think about my lack of courage it doesn't erase theFailed excuses! Your
lack of courage means that there is NO bullet hole there in that photo,
and we both know the reason. There was no bullet hole in the BOH, and the
photo is a phony in either case. One more for the CT scorecard.
bullet hole that every qualified medical examiner determined was there and
was a wound of entry.
bullet hole. And the area described by the pathologists was there in the
photo. But...no bullet hole!
Post by mainframetech
showing a bullet hole, had there been one there. As L'il Abner used to
say, 'any fool can plainly see' that if it was there, we could all see it.
didn't dare look.
your level of knowledge, has said the 'red spot' was NOTHING and he also
said that there was no matching hole in the skull beneath the scalp. So
we've done away with the 'red spot'. On to your next excuse.
Maybe they didn't notice it.Post by bigdog
the photos online aren't nearly as good as the originals which the review
panels have seen.
I know that the photo in question of the BIOH was perfectly fie forPost by mainframetech
If you were any good at weighing evidence, you would know the quality ofPost by bigdog
I don't need to see the bullet hole. Extremely qualified people who saw
many more and better photos as well as x-rays saw it. They don't need me
to confirm their findings.
Ah! Still blaming the photo quality.I don't need to see the bullet hole. Extremely qualified people who saw
many more and better photos as well as x-rays saw it. They don't need me
to confirm their findings.
the photos online aren't nearly as good as the originals which the review
panels have seen.
showing a bullet hole, had there been one there. As L'il Abner used to
say, 'any fool can plainly see' that if it was there, we could all see it.
Post by bigdog
you have come by most of your knowledge. You just assumed it.
I'm not hearing a positive statement so I'm still assuming that youPost by mainframetech
But you haven't even looked at
the photo so how would you know the quality is bad? I think the quality
is just fine to see a bullet hole, if there was one there.
Who told you I hadn't looked at the photo? Oh, that's right. The same wayBut you haven't even looked at
the photo so how would you know the quality is bad? I think the quality
is just fine to see a bullet hole, if there was one there.
you have come by most of your knowledge. You just assumed it.
didn't dare look.
Post by bigdog
and I and many others believe that is the bullet hole. I can't be certain
that is the bullet hole because I'm not qualified to make such judgements
and I have seen only that one photo. People who are qualified and have
seen so much more have determined there is an entry wound in the BOH and
that is good enough for me. Obviously nothing would be good enough for
you.
The answer to the 'red spot' is simple. Humes, an expert far abovePost by mainframetech
hole right where the pathologists said there was supposed to be one.
Who said no one can see a bullet hole. There is a red spot in the photoPost by bigdog
that of the original pathology team and all the review panels. Is there no
end to your silliness. Apparently not.
Well, you might want to try and explain why no one can see a bulletPost by mainframetech
I never
heard you comment after looking, or did you avoid looking too so you could
have 'plausible denial'? It doesn't take experts to see that there is no
bullet hole in the BOH of that photo, and one photo is all that's needed
to tell that there's no bullet hole.
Amazing how you think by looking at one photo your opinion should trumpI never
heard you comment after looking, or did you avoid looking too so you could
have 'plausible denial'? It doesn't take experts to see that there is no
bullet hole in the BOH of that photo, and one photo is all that's needed
to tell that there's no bullet hole.
that of the original pathology team and all the review panels. Is there no
end to your silliness. Apparently not.
hole right where the pathologists said there was supposed to be one.
and I and many others believe that is the bullet hole. I can't be certain
that is the bullet hole because I'm not qualified to make such judgements
and I have seen only that one photo. People who are qualified and have
seen so much more have determined there is an entry wound in the BOH and
that is good enough for me. Obviously nothing would be good enough for
you.
your level of knowledge, has said the 'red spot' was NOTHING and he also
said that there was no matching hole in the skull beneath the scalp. So
we've done away with the 'red spot'. On to your next excuse.
Post by bigdog
How would you know?
It's fine for imagining you see bullet holes.
That's what all the knowledgeable people have said. Then we have your
opinion.
WRONG! NO expert said that there is no bullet hole in the forehead.Post by mainframetech
But
of course, you don't want to get too deep into this, because there is only
one final answer.
Yes there is. Oswald did it.But
of course, you don't want to get too deep into this, because there is only
one final answer.
How would you know?
It's fine for imagining you see bullet holes.
Post by mainframetech
One photo of the right area is all that is
needed to determine if there is a bullet hole there or not.
There is a bullet hole in the BOH and no bullet hole in the forehead.One photo of the right area is all that is
needed to determine if there is a bullet hole there or not.
That's what all the knowledgeable people have said. Then we have your
opinion.
Post by mainframetech
elsewhere.
BOH, you're going to cop out and rely on 'experts'!
the emperor has no clothes! Some weigher of evidence you turned out to
be.
photo in question.
'swamp post' and repetitive to boot. I'm outa here.
Chris
Post by bigdog
parietal.
Nope, they said the 'large hole' was in the BOH, not the side orPost by mainframetech
eyewitnesses all corroborated each other that the 'large hole' was there.
There was a large hole that extended into occipital bone but was chieflyPost by bigdog
claims there was a blowout in the BOH. I know better.
Ah! That means that you have some explanation for why over 39Post by mainframetech
As well, you haven't found any explanation for there to be hair all
over the BOH, when over 39 eyewitnesses said they saw a 'large hole'
there. Many of them were medically trained and knew what they were
describing.
You are the one who needs to explain that conundrum. You are the one whoAs well, you haven't found any explanation for there to be hair all
over the BOH, when over 39 eyewitnesses said they saw a 'large hole'
there. Many of them were medically trained and knew what they were
describing.
claims there was a blowout in the BOH. I know better.
eyewitnesses all corroborated each other that the 'large hole' was there.
parietal.
elsewhere.
Post by bigdog
knowledgeable people have concluded. You are not competent to render such
judgements and you have seen a fraction of the evidence.
So even though it's obvious that you can't see any bullet hole in thePost by mainframetech
given by the pathologists for locations are all within the confines of the
photo in question, so why would the bullet hole not be there? The photo
quality is very good so that's not an excuse. I think you've just proved
that there is no bullet hole in the BOH.
You can carry on all you want. Your opinion doesn't stack up against whatPost by bigdog
isn't, it is elsewhere. I'm not going to dismiss the unanimous opinion of
every medical examiner who saw so much more evidence than I have just
because I don't see an obvious bullet hole. Why would you do so?
"obvious bullet hole"? Then why can't it be seen? The variationsPost by mainframetech
I'm having a hard time believing that you fell for that, since it was
"Humes’ comments regarding the supposed higher wound during his
HSCA testimony are particularly telling. After several failed attempts to
get both Humes and Boswell to agree the inshoot was high, the
HSCA’s Charles Petty, MD had another go with Humes, this time
concerning the possibility a red spot in the autopsy photos visible at the
top of JFK’s otherwise pristine rear scalp was the inshoot. Gazing
together at the photograph showing the all but unblemished rear of
“I don’t know what that [red spot] is. No. 1, I can assure
you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no
defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don’t
know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don’t, I
just don’t know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance.”
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm
As I said, I don't know whether that red spot is the bullet hole. If itI'm having a hard time believing that you fell for that, since it was
"Humes’ comments regarding the supposed higher wound during his
HSCA testimony are particularly telling. After several failed attempts to
get both Humes and Boswell to agree the inshoot was high, the
HSCA’s Charles Petty, MD had another go with Humes, this time
concerning the possibility a red spot in the autopsy photos visible at the
top of JFK’s otherwise pristine rear scalp was the inshoot. Gazing
together at the photograph showing the all but unblemished rear of
“I don’t know what that [red spot] is. No. 1, I can assure
you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no
defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don’t
know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don’t, I
just don’t know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance.”
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm
isn't, it is elsewhere. I'm not going to dismiss the unanimous opinion of
every medical examiner who saw so much more evidence than I have just
because I don't see an obvious bullet hole. Why would you do so?
given by the pathologists for locations are all within the confines of the
photo in question, so why would the bullet hole not be there? The photo
quality is very good so that's not an excuse. I think you've just proved
that there is no bullet hole in the BOH.
knowledgeable people have concluded. You are not competent to render such
judgements and you have seen a fraction of the evidence.
BOH, you're going to cop out and rely on 'experts'!
Post by bigdog
the review panels saw or if the bullet hole showed up elsewhere in the
other photos they looked at. It is possible the entry wound could be
covered by JFK's hair. That's why I'm not dumb enough to think I can look
at one photo and think I can make a better determination than the review
panels. Apparently that isn't a problem for you.
So no one can se the bullet hole in the BOH, but you don't dare sayPost by mainframetech
simple bullet hole.
It probably does but I can't be certain that red spot is the bullet holePost by bigdog
the review panels who saw so much more. Absurd.
What's absurd is your attempt to pretend that the photo can't show aPost by mainframetech
expert to determine if there was a bullet-sized hole in the BOH. Anyone
can see plainly that there is no such thing.
So you think by looking at one photo you can make a better judgement thanPost by bigdog
What I do know is that at scalp had been pulled away from the
skull and if it was pulled back up for that picture, it may not have lined
up with the hole in the scalp making the hole harder to see. It's also
possible the entry wound is hidden under the hair. In any case, it would
be very silly of me to think with my complete lack of training in forensic
medicine that I could look at one photo and make a better determination
than the three pathologists who conducted the autopsy and teams of the
best medical examiners in the country who got to see far more and better
quality photos and x-rays than I have. What kind of moron would do
something like that?
The moron would be the one that thought that it would have to take anWhat I do know is that at scalp had been pulled away from the
skull and if it was pulled back up for that picture, it may not have lined
up with the hole in the scalp making the hole harder to see. It's also
possible the entry wound is hidden under the hair. In any case, it would
be very silly of me to think with my complete lack of training in forensic
medicine that I could look at one photo and make a better determination
than the three pathologists who conducted the autopsy and teams of the
best medical examiners in the country who got to see far more and better
quality photos and x-rays than I have. What kind of moron would do
something like that?
expert to determine if there was a bullet-sized hole in the BOH. Anyone
can see plainly that there is no such thing.
the review panels who saw so much more. Absurd.
simple bullet hole.
the review panels saw or if the bullet hole showed up elsewhere in the
other photos they looked at. It is possible the entry wound could be
covered by JFK's hair. That's why I'm not dumb enough to think I can look
at one photo and think I can make a better determination than the review
panels. Apparently that isn't a problem for you.
the emperor has no clothes! Some weigher of evidence you turned out to
be.
Post by bigdog
LOL! Chicken! Just say it. You can't see any hole in the BOH in thePost by mainframetech
This is not rocket science. It's a simple hole in
the BOH in a photo. So where is it?
Where the review panels said. In the BOH.This is not rocket science. It's a simple hole in
the BOH in a photo. So where is it?
photo in question.
Post by bigdog
talking about.
LOL! Not much to grab on to in that sentence.Post by mainframetech
Sherlock! If the photo was legitimate, then there is NO hole in the BOH.
But if the photo is altered, then we're dealing with altered evidence,
which means the possibility that the panels were shown the phony photos so
that they would come to the wrong conclusion as to the cause of death. A
bullet from above and behind.
Then there is the correct explanation. You just don't know what you arePost by bigdog
the BOH. Brilliant work, Sherlock. Did the people who altered the photo to
hide the big hole forget to alter it to show a little hole?
Sounds like you figured it out all by yourself! Excellent workPost by mainframetech
which you tend to do. I've pointed out that the photo of the BOH was
altered, and there is no doubt about it.
Oh, so you are using a altered photo to prove there was no entry wound inPost by bigdog
You are making a big deal about not being able to see a small entry wound
in the BOH. Apparently it doesn't bother you that the large blowout in the
BOH that you claim was there doesn't show up in that photo either. Got any
explanation for that?
Of course! I've addressed that recently. You probably missed it,You are making a big deal about not being able to see a small entry wound
in the BOH. Apparently it doesn't bother you that the large blowout in the
BOH that you claim was there doesn't show up in that photo either. Got any
explanation for that?
which you tend to do. I've pointed out that the photo of the BOH was
altered, and there is no doubt about it.
the BOH. Brilliant work, Sherlock. Did the people who altered the photo to
hide the big hole forget to alter it to show a little hole?
Sherlock! If the photo was legitimate, then there is NO hole in the BOH.
But if the photo is altered, then we're dealing with altered evidence,
which means the possibility that the panels were shown the phony photos so
that they would come to the wrong conclusion as to the cause of death. A
bullet from above and behind.
talking about.
Post by bigdog
assassination that is pretty much irrelevant.
believe about the assassination. My arguments haven't moved the needle of
public opinion.
arrive. Name ONE person who said he saw two.
Dennis David was the proof of 2 caskets arriving, and this is aPost by mainframetech
you all about is supported by 40% of the US population,
Since most people who don't know the most rudimentary facts of thePost by bigdog
stated that seriously. Amazing these klutzes who masterminded this
conspiracy did so many dumb things yet still pulled it off and have gotten
away with it all these years. They couldn't hire competent gunmen. They
didn't give them decent ammo. They put an army of shooters in Dealey Plaza
and then tried to blame one man. They planted a bullet at Parkland but put
it on the wrong gurney. They sent a guy to kill Oswald but he didn't get
there at the announced time of the transfer. They played a ridiculous game
of musical caskets at Bethesda instead of just having the pathologists
falsify the report. You claim they falsified the BOH photo but forgot to
put in an entrance wound. They forgot to alter the photo that shows a
bullet hole in the forehead/temple. All this and about a dozen other
things that I've forgotten about. You have to believe they made all these
mistakes and yet still got away with the crime of the century. It is truly
amazing the things you are willing to convince yourself of to fool
yourself into believing in a non-existent conspiracy.
You seem to have forgotten something else. That phony story I've toldPost by mainframetech
Sworn testimony says there was a
'large hole' there, and yet the photo shows what the original government
report told about, which was no large hole in the BOH. Whoever altered
the autopsy photos forgot to put in the bullet hole,
I suggested that facetiously before I read your comment in which youSworn testimony says there was a
'large hole' there, and yet the photo shows what the original government
report told about, which was no large hole in the BOH. Whoever altered
the autopsy photos forgot to put in the bullet hole,
stated that seriously. Amazing these klutzes who masterminded this
conspiracy did so many dumb things yet still pulled it off and have gotten
away with it all these years. They couldn't hire competent gunmen. They
didn't give them decent ammo. They put an army of shooters in Dealey Plaza
and then tried to blame one man. They planted a bullet at Parkland but put
it on the wrong gurney. They sent a guy to kill Oswald but he didn't get
there at the announced time of the transfer. They played a ridiculous game
of musical caskets at Bethesda instead of just having the pathologists
falsify the report. You claim they falsified the BOH photo but forgot to
put in an entrance wound. They forgot to alter the photo that shows a
bullet hole in the forehead/temple. All this and about a dozen other
things that I've forgotten about. You have to believe they made all these
mistakes and yet still got away with the crime of the century. It is truly
amazing the things you are willing to convince yourself of to fool
yourself into believing in a non-existent conspiracy.
you all about is supported by 40% of the US population,
assassination that is pretty much irrelevant.
Post by mainframetech
and some folks
have kept arguing for the phony story for 50 years and more. That means
the true story has less traction and is an uphill battle for belief of the
evidence. In effect, YOU are the reason that all the info you've listed
above is hard for some people to believe is because you go around arguing
for the tired old WCR.
99.999999% of the people in this country aren't even aware of what Iand some folks
have kept arguing for the phony story for 50 years and more. That means
the true story has less traction and is an uphill battle for belief of the
evidence. In effect, YOU are the reason that all the info you've listed
above is hard for some people to believe is because you go around arguing
for the tired old WCR.
believe about the assassination. My arguments haven't moved the needle of
public opinion.
Post by mainframetech
nut' killer, so what else could they conclude?
That there was no conspiracy which would have been the correct answer.Post by bigdog
drawings for the HSCA. They had the HSCA continue with the cover up but
forgot to tell them to conclude that there was only one shooter. What
morons.
The evidence that was left to look at would suggest only one 'lonePost by mainframetech
but they didn't
forget to tell Ida Dox to put it in to her drawing of the original photo.
Talk about hilarious! The drawing has a bullet hole, and the photo it
came from has nothing! LOL!
Oh, so they were still engineering the cover up when Ida Dox produced thebut they didn't
forget to tell Ida Dox to put it in to her drawing of the original photo.
Talk about hilarious! The drawing has a bullet hole, and the photo it
came from has nothing! LOL!
drawings for the HSCA. They had the HSCA continue with the cover up but
forgot to tell them to conclude that there was only one shooter. What
morons.
nut' killer, so what else could they conclude?
Post by mainframetech
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
questions to get to the same truth. Think it through.
Obviously you haven't or you wouldn't have made a such a silly argument.http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
Post by bigdog
different questions.
Depends on the questions. It's very possible to ask differentPost by mainframetech
Yes it does so I ask you again. Why would you expect the same answers toPost by bigdog
Depends on the questions.Post by mainframetech
see the difference. And it's not due to different questions.
Why would you expect him to give the same answers to different questions?Post by bigdog
Both were interviews and the questions were different so naturally the
answers would be different.
Oh, get away! His 2 statements did not agree, and it is simple toPost by mainframetech
Go ahead, look for the bullet entry! When you can't find it, you'll
have to call Lipsey a liar.
And don't forget his mismatch in his HSCA statement and his video.
More lies.
There were no lies in either of the two statements. They are compatible.Go ahead, look for the bullet entry! When you can't find it, you'll
have to call Lipsey a liar.
And don't forget his mismatch in his HSCA statement and his video.
More lies.
Both were interviews and the questions were different so naturally the
answers would be different.
see the difference. And it's not due to different questions.
different questions.
questions to get to the same truth. Think it through.
Post by mainframetech
No you haven't. All the witnesses you cited only said they saw one casketPost by bigdog
caskets arrived at different times. You still can't.
I have done so, and you ignored the proof.Post by mainframetech
If I am wrong you should be able to point to a witness that said twoPost by bigdog
who weighed in described one casket.
WRONG!Post by mainframetech
there were 2 caskets and they arrived at different times, and you still
try to pretend that the evidence didn't happen! That's weird! You base
your imaginary story on guesses as to road conditions, and speed of
driving, when you have flat statements of what had transpired in reality.
And of course, you've left out the time spent at the main entrance while
the family got out of the ambulance.
There is no sworn testimony by anyone that two caskets arrived. EverybodyPost by bigdog
imaginary shipping casket to get to Bethesda 42 minute before the bronze
casket. For one it's only a 40 minute drive from Andrews to Bethesda and
that is if you don't have a police escort. The ambulance had a huge head
start on any shipping casket that would have been unloaded from AF1 after
all the cameras and witnesses had left the area. Even if the shipping
casket had been sent to Bethesda by teleportation, it could not have
arrived 42 minutes before the bronze casket.
I wonder about you. You get sworn testimony and corroboration thatPost by mainframetech
Now here's a final statement from Lipsey, since you're so determined to
"The ceremonial troop in Washington had been arranged to meet the body at
Andrews. Put it in a hearse. We had a decoy hearse because we knew there
was a mob waiting at Bethesda Naval Hospital. So we got in a couple of
these helicopters with our honor guard when they left and flew over to the
hospital to get there before they did. And when they came in, one of the
hearses went right up to the front door. All of the crowd, of course,
rushed over there. The one with the body in it went around to the back
where the morgue was and we unloaded it. We met them in the back and
unloaded it right there to avoid the news media and the crowd and
everything else."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
And while Lipsey said the casket went by road, there was no choice that
it went by helicopter because it got to the morgue 42 minutes BEFORE the
empty Bronze casket. Lipsey has clearly said there were 2 ambulances, one
was 'decoy', and one went to the back door with the body, and the other
went to the main entrance.
I've showed you the time line that would have made it impossible for yourNow here's a final statement from Lipsey, since you're so determined to
"The ceremonial troop in Washington had been arranged to meet the body at
Andrews. Put it in a hearse. We had a decoy hearse because we knew there
was a mob waiting at Bethesda Naval Hospital. So we got in a couple of
these helicopters with our honor guard when they left and flew over to the
hospital to get there before they did. And when they came in, one of the
hearses went right up to the front door. All of the crowd, of course,
rushed over there. The one with the body in it went around to the back
where the morgue was and we unloaded it. We met them in the back and
unloaded it right there to avoid the news media and the crowd and
everything else."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
And while Lipsey said the casket went by road, there was no choice that
it went by helicopter because it got to the morgue 42 minutes BEFORE the
empty Bronze casket. Lipsey has clearly said there were 2 ambulances, one
was 'decoy', and one went to the back door with the body, and the other
went to the main entrance.
imaginary shipping casket to get to Bethesda 42 minute before the bronze
casket. For one it's only a 40 minute drive from Andrews to Bethesda and
that is if you don't have a police escort. The ambulance had a huge head
start on any shipping casket that would have been unloaded from AF1 after
all the cameras and witnesses had left the area. Even if the shipping
casket had been sent to Bethesda by teleportation, it could not have
arrived 42 minutes before the bronze casket.
there were 2 caskets and they arrived at different times, and you still
try to pretend that the evidence didn't happen! That's weird! You base
your imaginary story on guesses as to road conditions, and speed of
driving, when you have flat statements of what had transpired in reality.
And of course, you've left out the time spent at the main entrance while
the family got out of the ambulance.
who weighed in described one casket.
caskets arrived at different times. You still can't.
arrive. Name ONE person who said he saw two.
'swamp post' and repetitive to boot. I'm outa here.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-24 21:11:52 UTC
Post by mainframetech
bullet struck the BOH? Wow! No belief in your own WCR! More proof for
me that the WCR is a tired old phony and outmoded. So you try to lay off
the blame on the photo quality, which is just fine for the purpose of
seeing a bullet hole, and you've blamed your lack of courage to look for a
bullet hole on the fact that it's only one photo! Failed excuses! Your
lack of courage means that there is NO bullet hole there in that photo,
and we both know the reason. There was no bullet hole in the BOH, and the
photo is a phony in either case. One more for the CT scorecard.
the photo so how would you know the quality is bad? I think the quality
is just fine to see a bullet hole, if there was one there.
That's not fair, to confront him with evidence. All he knows is what thePost by bigdog
better judgement about an entry wound in JFK's head than the original
pathologists who saw the body and the review panels who saw so many more
and better quality photos than I have.
LOL! Not willing to take the challenge when you're so sure that aPost by mainframetech
of what I saw is somehow more right?
I know it is.Post by bigdog
the findings of the 3 pathologists who had the body in front of them as
well as teams of highly qualified review panels who saw so many more
photos as well as x-rays.
WRONG as usual! So you think your amateur opinion of my flat statementPost by mainframetech
DON'T GIVE ME THAT COVERUP CRAP! The photo of the BOH that we have is
perfectly valid and clear for the purpose of seeing a bullet hole. But
there is none there. The photo shows the areas where the pathologists
said the bullet hole was located, but there's nothing there. And you
won't want to hear it, but the photo of the BOH is also very WRONG, since
there were over 39 eyewitnesses that there was a 'large hole' in the BOH,
right where the photo shows hair and no hole. Not only do the photos show
falseness in the reporting, but they prove they were altered as well. If
the medical examiners saw those photos, then there's no doubt they got the
wrong conclusions as to the cause of death. Naturally, the LNs reading
this will ignore completely the photographic proof just shown.
So you think your amateurish opinion based on looking at one photo trumpsDON'T GIVE ME THAT COVERUP CRAP! The photo of the BOH that we have is
perfectly valid and clear for the purpose of seeing a bullet hole. But
there is none there. The photo shows the areas where the pathologists
said the bullet hole was located, but there's nothing there. And you
won't want to hear it, but the photo of the BOH is also very WRONG, since
there were over 39 eyewitnesses that there was a 'large hole' in the BOH,
right where the photo shows hair and no hole. Not only do the photos show
falseness in the reporting, but they prove they were altered as well. If
the medical examiners saw those photos, then there's no doubt they got the
wrong conclusions as to the cause of death. Naturally, the LNs reading
this will ignore completely the photographic proof just shown.
the findings of the 3 pathologists who had the body in front of them as
well as teams of highly qualified review panels who saw so many more
photos as well as x-rays.
of what I saw is somehow more right?
Post by mainframetech
Then why didn't you take the
challenge when I first made it, to point out the bullet hole location
using the information from the pathologists as to the location of the
bullet hole?
I'm not dumb enough to think by looking at one photo that I can make aThen why didn't you take the
challenge when I first made it, to point out the bullet hole location
using the information from the pathologists as to the location of the
bullet hole?
better judgement about an entry wound in JFK's head than the original
pathologists who saw the body and the review panels who saw so many more
and better quality photos than I have.
bullet struck the BOH? Wow! No belief in your own WCR! More proof for
me that the WCR is a tired old phony and outmoded. So you try to lay off
the blame on the photo quality, which is just fine for the purpose of
seeing a bullet hole, and you've blamed your lack of courage to look for a
bullet hole on the fact that it's only one photo! Failed excuses! Your
lack of courage means that there is NO bullet hole there in that photo,
and we both know the reason. There was no bullet hole in the BOH, and the
photo is a phony in either case. One more for the CT scorecard.
Post by bigdog
I don't need to see the bullet hole. Extremely qualified people who saw
many more and better photos as well as x-rays saw it. They don't need me
to confirm their findings.
Ah! Still blaming the photo quality. But you haven't even looked atI don't need to see the bullet hole. Extremely qualified people who saw
many more and better photos as well as x-rays saw it. They don't need me
to confirm their findings.
the photo so how would you know the quality is bad? I think the quality
is just fine to see a bullet hole, if there was one there.
government told him.
Post by mainframetech
hole right where the pathologists said there was supposed to be one. But
Maybe they're not looking hard enough or maybe the photo is not goodPost by bigdog
that of the original pathology team and all the review panels. Is there no
end to your silliness. Apparently not.
Well, you might want to try and explain why no one can se a bulletPost by mainframetech
I never
heard you comment after looking, or did you avoid looking too so you could
have 'plausible denial'? It doesn't take experts to see that there is no
bullet hole in the BOH of that photo, and one photo is all that's needed
to tell that there's no bullet hole.
Amazing how you think by looking at one photo your opinion should trumpI never
heard you comment after looking, or did you avoid looking too so you could
have 'plausible denial'? It doesn't take experts to see that there is no
bullet hole in the BOH of that photo, and one photo is all that's needed
to tell that there's no bullet hole.
that of the original pathology team and all the review panels. Is there no
end to your silliness. Apparently not.
hole right where the pathologists said there was supposed to be one. But
enough quality.
0> of course, you don't want to get too deep into this, because there is
only
Post by mainframetech
one final answer. The WCR is stupid, and the quality of the photo is just
fine for seeing bullet holes. One photo of the right area is all that is
needed to determine if there is a bullet hole there or not.
eyewitnesses all corroborated each other that the 'large hole' was there.
given by the pathologists for locations are all within the confines of the
photo in question, so why would the bullet hole not be there? The photo
quality is very good so that's not an excuse. I think you've just proved
that there is no bullet hole in the BOH.
Humes saw it. He said it was a blood clot. Why can't all these WCone final answer. The WCR is stupid, and the quality of the photo is just
fine for seeing bullet holes. One photo of the right area is all that is
needed to determine if there is a bullet hole there or not.
Post by bigdog
claims there was a blowout in the BOH. I know better.
Ah! That means that you have some explanation for why over 39Post by mainframetech
As well, you haven't found any explanation for there to be hair all
over the BOH, when over 39 eyewitnesses said they saw a 'large hole'
there. Many of them were medically trained and knew what they were
describing.
You are the one who needs to explain that conundrum. You are the one whoAs well, you haven't found any explanation for there to be hair all
over the BOH, when over 39 eyewitnesses said they saw a 'large hole'
there. Many of them were medically trained and knew what they were
describing.
claims there was a blowout in the BOH. I know better.
eyewitnesses all corroborated each other that the 'large hole' was there.
Post by bigdog
isn't, it is elsewhere. I'm not going to dismiss the unanimous opinion of
every medical examiner who saw so much more evidence than I have just
because I don't see an obvious bullet hole. Why would you do so?
"obvious bullet hole"? Then why can't it be seen? The variationsPost by mainframetech
I'm having a hard time believing that you fell for that, since it was
"Humes??? comments regarding the supposed higher wound during his
HSCA testimony are particularly telling. After several failed attempts to
get both Humes and Boswell to agree the inshoot was high, the
HSCA???s Charles Petty, MD had another go with Humes, this time
concerning the possibility a red spot in the autopsy photos visible at the
top of JFK???s otherwise pristine rear scalp was the inshoot. Gazing
together at the photograph showing the all but unblemished rear of
???I don???t know what that [red spot] is. No. 1, I can assure
you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no
defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don???t
know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don???t, I
just don???t know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance.???
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm
As I said, I don't know whether that red spot is the bullet hole. If itI'm having a hard time believing that you fell for that, since it was
"Humes??? comments regarding the supposed higher wound during his
HSCA testimony are particularly telling. After several failed attempts to
get both Humes and Boswell to agree the inshoot was high, the
HSCA???s Charles Petty, MD had another go with Humes, this time
concerning the possibility a red spot in the autopsy photos visible at the
top of JFK???s otherwise pristine rear scalp was the inshoot. Gazing
together at the photograph showing the all but unblemished rear of
???I don???t know what that [red spot] is. No. 1, I can assure
you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no
defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don???t
know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don???t, I
just don???t know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance.???
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm
isn't, it is elsewhere. I'm not going to dismiss the unanimous opinion of
every medical examiner who saw so much more evidence than I have just
because I don't see an obvious bullet hole. Why would you do so?
given by the pathologists for locations are all within the confines of the
photo in question, so why would the bullet hole not be there? The photo
quality is very good so that's not an excuse. I think you've just proved
that there is no bullet hole in the BOH.
defenders just be good little minions and accept what THEIR expert says?
Post by mainframetech
simple bullet hole. This is not rocket science. It's a simple hole in
the BOH in a photo. So where is it?
Oh, you mean the bab of fat tissue that Artwohl pointed out down nearPost by bigdog
the review panels who saw so much more. Absurd.
What's absurd is your attempt to pretend that the photo can't show aPost by mainframetech
expert to determine if there was a bullet-sized hole in the BOH. Anyone
can see plainly that there is no such thing.
So you think by looking at one photo you can make a better judgement thanPost by bigdog
What I do know is that at scalp had been pulled away from the
skull and if it was pulled back up for that picture, it may not have lined
up with the hole in the scalp making the hole harder to see. It's also
possible the entry wound is hidden under the hair. In any case, it would
be very silly of me to think with my complete lack of training in forensic
medicine that I could look at one photo and make a better determination
than the three pathologists who conducted the autopsy and teams of the
best medical examiners in the country who got to see far more and better
quality photos and x-rays than I have. What kind of moron would do
something like that?
The moron would be the one that thought that it would have to take anWhat I do know is that at scalp had been pulled away from the
skull and if it was pulled back up for that picture, it may not have lined
up with the hole in the scalp making the hole harder to see. It's also
possible the entry wound is hidden under the hair. In any case, it would
be very silly of me to think with my complete lack of training in forensic
medicine that I could look at one photo and make a better determination
than the three pathologists who conducted the autopsy and teams of the
best medical examiners in the country who got to see far more and better
quality photos and x-rays than I have. What kind of moron would do
something like that?
expert to determine if there was a bullet-sized hole in the BOH. Anyone
can see plainly that there is no such thing.
the review panels who saw so much more. Absurd.
simple bullet hole. This is not rocket science. It's a simple hole in
the BOH in a photo. So where is it?
the hairline?
Post by mainframetech
Sherlock! If the photo was legitimate, then there is NO hole in the BOH.
But if the photo is altered, then we're dealing with altered evidence,
which means the possibility that the panels were shown the phony photos so
that they would come to the wrong conclusion as to the cause of death. A
bullet from above and behind.
you all about is supported by 40% of the US population, and some folks
have kept arguing for the phony story for 50 years and more. That means
the true story has less traction and is an uphill battle for belief of the
evidence. In effect, YOU are the reason that all the info you've listed
above is hard for some people to believe is because you go around arguing
for the tired old WCR.
40% of the public did not believe the WC, but they do believe in UFOs.Post by bigdog
the BOH. Brilliant work, Sherlock. Did the people who altered the photo to
hide the big hole forget to alter it to show a little hole?
Sounds like you figured it out all by yourself! Excellent workPost by mainframetech
which you tend to do. I've pointed out that the photo of the BOH was
altered, and there is no doubt about it.
Oh, so you are using a altered photo to prove there was no entry wound inPost by bigdog
You are making a big deal about not being able to see a small entry wound
in the BOH. Apparently it doesn't bother you that the large blowout in the
BOH that you claim was there doesn't show up in that photo either. Got any
explanation for that?
Of course! I've addressed that recently. You probably missed it,You are making a big deal about not being able to see a small entry wound
in the BOH. Apparently it doesn't bother you that the large blowout in the
BOH that you claim was there doesn't show up in that photo either. Got any
explanation for that?
which you tend to do. I've pointed out that the photo of the BOH was
altered, and there is no doubt about it.
the BOH. Brilliant work, Sherlock. Did the people who altered the photo to
hide the big hole forget to alter it to show a little hole?
Sherlock! If the photo was legitimate, then there is NO hole in the BOH.
But if the photo is altered, then we're dealing with altered evidence,
which means the possibility that the panels were shown the phony photos so
that they would come to the wrong conclusion as to the cause of death. A
bullet from above and behind.
Post by bigdog
stated that seriously. Amazing these klutzes who masterminded this
conspiracy did so many dumb things yet still pulled it off and have gotten
away with it all these years. They couldn't hire competent gunmen. They
didn't give them decent ammo. They put an army of shooters in Dealey Plaza
and then tried to blame one man. They planted a bullet at Parkland but put
it on the wrong gurney. They sent a guy to kill Oswald but he didn't get
there at the announced time of the transfer. They played a ridiculous game
of musical caskets at Bethesda instead of just having the pathologists
falsify the report. You claim they falsified the BOH photo but forgot to
put in an entrance wound. They forgot to alter the photo that shows a
bullet hole in the forehead/temple. All this and about a dozen other
things that I've forgotten about. You have to believe they made all these
mistakes and yet still got away with the crime of the century. It is truly
amazing the things you are willing to convince yourself of to fool
yourself into believing in a non-existent conspiracy.
You seem to have forgotten something else. That phony story I've toldPost by mainframetech
Sworn testimony says there was a
'large hole' there, and yet the photo shows what the original government
report told about, which was no large hole in the BOH. Whoever altered
the autopsy photos forgot to put in the bullet hole,
I suggested that facetiously before I read your comment in which youSworn testimony says there was a
'large hole' there, and yet the photo shows what the original government
report told about, which was no large hole in the BOH. Whoever altered
the autopsy photos forgot to put in the bullet hole,
stated that seriously. Amazing these klutzes who masterminded this
conspiracy did so many dumb things yet still pulled it off and have gotten
away with it all these years. They couldn't hire competent gunmen. They
didn't give them decent ammo. They put an army of shooters in Dealey Plaza
and then tried to blame one man. They planted a bullet at Parkland but put
it on the wrong gurney. They sent a guy to kill Oswald but he didn't get
there at the announced time of the transfer. They played a ridiculous game
of musical caskets at Bethesda instead of just having the pathologists
falsify the report. You claim they falsified the BOH photo but forgot to
put in an entrance wound. They forgot to alter the photo that shows a
bullet hole in the forehead/temple. All this and about a dozen other
things that I've forgotten about. You have to believe they made all these
mistakes and yet still got away with the crime of the century. It is truly
amazing the things you are willing to convince yourself of to fool
yourself into believing in a non-existent conspiracy.
you all about is supported by 40% of the US population, and some folks
have kept arguing for the phony story for 50 years and more. That means
the true story has less traction and is an uphill battle for belief of the
evidence. In effect, YOU are the reason that all the info you've listed
above is hard for some people to believe is because you go around arguing
for the tired old WCR.
Post by mainframetech
nut' killer, so what else could they conclude?
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
questions to get to the same truth. Think it through.
proof unless a witness actually SAYS that he saw 2 caskets. Well, in the
normal course, that may not happen, but we have minds and therefore can
deduce from available info what occurred.
Fact, we know we saw the Bronze casket come down from AF1 and it went
into a hearse/ambulance with the family and started off for Bethesda. We
know that Dennis David was assigned the detail to help get the SHIPPING
casket into the morgue and place the body on the table #1. Sworn
testimony and documents prove that.
Then Dennis David says that he went out front to the lobby area after
a half hour, and he saw the hearse/ambulance arrive at the main entrance
and unload family from it. Mind you, the Shipping casket has been at the
morgue for at least a half hour. We know that was the ambulance with the
Bronze casket is in the ambulance at the main entrance because Jackie got
out of it. So now we have absolute proof that there were 2 caskets and
David saw them arrive. The ambulance at the main entrance went around the
back to the morgue, and there is your second arrival. If you try to
pretend that it was the same arrival as the SHIPING casket, than you've
lost touch will reality.
making up a phony situation so you can then pick at it, but it won't help
you. What he stated that he saw was plenty good for deducing there were 2
separate caskets. And all your picking at it won't change it.
And your misunderstanding sounds more faked than real, so I'm tired of
this repetitive talk. You have all relevant info, so I'm outa here.
Chris
Post by bigdog
drawings for the HSCA. They had the HSCA continue with the cover up but
forgot to tell them to conclude that there was only one shooter. What
morons.
The evidence that was left to look at would suggest only one 'lonePost by mainframetech
but they didn't
forget to tell Ida Dox to put it in to her drawing of the original photo.
Talk about hilarious! The drawing has a bullet hole, and the photo it
came from has nothing! LOL!
Oh, so they were still engineering the cover up when Ida Dox produced thebut they didn't
forget to tell Ida Dox to put it in to her drawing of the original photo.
Talk about hilarious! The drawing has a bullet hole, and the photo it
came from has nothing! LOL!
drawings for the HSCA. They had the HSCA continue with the cover up but
forgot to tell them to conclude that there was only one shooter. What
morons.
nut' killer, so what else could they conclude?
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
Post by bigdog
different questions.
Depends on the questions. It's very possible to ask differentPost by mainframetech
Yes it does so I ask you again. Why would you expect the same answers toPost by bigdog
Depends on the questions.Post by mainframetech
see the difference. And it's not due to different questions.
Why would you expect him to give the same answers to different questions?Post by bigdog
Both were interviews and the questions were different so naturally the
answers would be different.
Oh, get away! His 2 statements did not agree, and it is simple toPost by mainframetech
Go ahead, look for the bullet entry! When you can't find it, you'll
have to call Lipsey a liar.
And don't forget his mismatch in his HSCA statement and his video.
More lies.
There were no lies in either of the two statements. They are compatible.Go ahead, look for the bullet entry! When you can't find it, you'll
have to call Lipsey a liar.
And don't forget his mismatch in his HSCA statement and his video.
More lies.
Both were interviews and the questions were different so naturally the
answers would be different.
see the difference. And it's not due to different questions.
different questions.
questions to get to the same truth. Think it through.
Post by bigdog
caskets arrived at different times. You still can't.
I have done so, and you ignored the proof.Post by mainframetech
If I am wrong you should be able to point to a witness that said twoPost by bigdog
who weighed in described one casket.
WRONG!Post by mainframetech
there were 2 caskets and they arrived at different times, and you still
try to pretend that the evidence didn't happen! That's weird! You base
your imaginary story on guesses as to road conditions, and speed of
driving, when you have flat statements of what had transpired in reality.
And of course, you've left out the time spent at the main entrance while
the family got out of the ambulance.
There is no sworn testimony by anyone that two caskets arrived. EverybodyPost by bigdog
imaginary shipping casket to get to Bethesda 42 minute before the bronze
casket. For one it's only a 40 minute drive from Andrews to Bethesda and
that is if you don't have a police escort. The ambulance had a huge head
start on any shipping casket that would have been unloaded from AF1 after
all the cameras and witnesses had left the area. Even if the shipping
casket had been sent to Bethesda by teleportation, it could not have
arrived 42 minutes before the bronze casket.
I wonder about you. You get sworn testimony and corroboration thatPost by mainframetech
Now here's a final statement from Lipsey, since you're so determined to
"The ceremonial troop in Washington had been arranged to meet the body at
Andrews. Put it in a hearse. We had a decoy hearse because we knew there
was a mob waiting at Bethesda Naval Hospital. So we got in a couple of
these helicopters with our honor guard when they left and flew over to the
hospital to get there before they did. And when they came in, one of the
hearses went right up to the front door. All of the crowd, of course,
rushed over there. The one with the body in it went around to the back
where the morgue was and we unloaded it. We met them in the back and
unloaded it right there to avoid the news media and the crowd and
everything else."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
And while Lipsey said the casket went by road, there was no choice that
it went by helicopter because it got to the morgue 42 minutes BEFORE the
empty Bronze casket. Lipsey has clearly said there were 2 ambulances, one
was 'decoy', and one went to the back door with the body, and the other
went to the main entrance.
I've showed you the time line that would have made it impossible for yourNow here's a final statement from Lipsey, since you're so determined to
"The ceremonial troop in Washington had been arranged to meet the body at
Andrews. Put it in a hearse. We had a decoy hearse because we knew there
was a mob waiting at Bethesda Naval Hospital. So we got in a couple of
these helicopters with our honor guard when they left and flew over to the
hospital to get there before they did. And when they came in, one of the
hearses went right up to the front door. All of the crowd, of course,
rushed over there. The one with the body in it went around to the back
where the morgue was and we unloaded it. We met them in the back and
unloaded it right there to avoid the news media and the crowd and
everything else."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
And while Lipsey said the casket went by road, there was no choice that
it went by helicopter because it got to the morgue 42 minutes BEFORE the
empty Bronze casket. Lipsey has clearly said there were 2 ambulances, one
was 'decoy', and one went to the back door with the body, and the other
went to the main entrance.
imaginary shipping casket to get to Bethesda 42 minute before the bronze
casket. For one it's only a 40 minute drive from Andrews to Bethesda and
that is if you don't have a police escort. The ambulance had a huge head
start on any shipping casket that would have been unloaded from AF1 after
all the cameras and witnesses had left the area. Even if the shipping
casket had been sent to Bethesda by teleportation, it could not have
arrived 42 minutes before the bronze casket.
there were 2 caskets and they arrived at different times, and you still
try to pretend that the evidence didn't happen! That's weird! You base
your imaginary story on guesses as to road conditions, and speed of
driving, when you have flat statements of what had transpired in reality.
And of course, you've left out the time spent at the main entrance while
the family got out of the ambulance.
who weighed in described one casket.
caskets arrived at different times. You still can't.
Post by bigdog
and you still can't.
casket.
Oh, I see. You're playing another hopeful game. You hope that it's noPost by mainframetech
And you've been given an answer to that many times. Don't
begin to pretend that you never heard the answer.
You've never cited a single witness who said they saw two caskets arriveAnd you've been given an answer to that many times. Don't
begin to pretend that you never heard the answer.
and you still can't.
Post by mainframetech
Dennis David gave his
statement that he helped to bring in the SHIPPING casket, and then at
least a half hour later he saw the motorcade and ambulance that Jackie was
in with the Bronze casket arrive at the main entrance of the hospital.
The family came in and was taken by elevator to the 17th floor to the VIP
suite.
He saw the family dropped off at the front but didn't say he saw anotherDennis David gave his
statement that he helped to bring in the SHIPPING casket, and then at
least a half hour later he saw the motorcade and ambulance that Jackie was
in with the Bronze casket arrive at the main entrance of the hospital.
The family came in and was taken by elevator to the 17th floor to the VIP
suite.
casket.
proof unless a witness actually SAYS that he saw 2 caskets. Well, in the
normal course, that may not happen, but we have minds and therefore can
deduce from available info what occurred.
Fact, we know we saw the Bronze casket come down from AF1 and it went
into a hearse/ambulance with the family and started off for Bethesda. We
know that Dennis David was assigned the detail to help get the SHIPPING
casket into the morgue and place the body on the table #1. Sworn
testimony and documents prove that.
Then Dennis David says that he went out front to the lobby area after
a half hour, and he saw the hearse/ambulance arrive at the main entrance
and unload family from it. Mind you, the Shipping casket has been at the
morgue for at least a half hour. We know that was the ambulance with the
Bronze casket is in the ambulance at the main entrance because Jackie got
out of it. So now we have absolute proof that there were 2 caskets and
David saw them arrive. The ambulance at the main entrance went around the
back to the morgue, and there is your second arrival. If you try to
pretend that it was the same arrival as the SHIPING casket, than you've
lost touch will reality.
Post by bigdog
so.
WRONG! Don't need to have him say he saw two caskets. You'rePost by mainframetech
So you've got the same person seeing separate casket arrivals with
time in between.
Point to where he said he saw a second casket. Can't do it? Didn't thinkSo you've got the same person seeing separate casket arrivals with
time in between.
so.
making up a phony situation so you can then pick at it, but it won't help
you. What he stated that he saw was plenty good for deducing there were 2
separate caskets. And all your picking at it won't change it.
Post by bigdog
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=708#relPageId=3&tab=page
He does not say he saw a bronze casket come out of the Navy ambulance. He
saw one casket. Period. You have no one who saw two caskets.
OK. You're intentionally trying to make a mess out of simple evidence.Post by mainframetech
He brought in the SHIPPING casket at 6:35pm, and after
at least a half hour (by his own statement) he saw the ambulance with the
Bronze casket from AF1 stop at the main entrance.
Quote him saying he saw a bronze casket in addition to the shippingHe brought in the SHIPPING casket at 6:35pm, and after
at least a half hour (by his own statement) he saw the ambulance with the
Bronze casket from AF1 stop at the main entrance.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=708#relPageId=3&tab=page
He does not say he saw a bronze casket come out of the Navy ambulance. He
saw one casket. Period. You have no one who saw two caskets.
And your misunderstanding sounds more faked than real, so I'm tired of
this repetitive talk. You have all relevant info, so I'm outa here.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-22 18:38:44 UTC
Post by bigdog
better judgement about an entry wound in JFK's head than the original
pathologists who saw the body and the review panels who saw so many more
and better quality photos than I have.
Well, your original doctors couldn't even see the throat wound. Can you?Post by mainframetech
of what I saw is somehow more right?
I know it is.Post by bigdog
the findings of the 3 pathologists who had the body in front of them as
well as teams of highly qualified review panels who saw so many more
photos as well as x-rays.
WRONG as usual! So you think your amateur opinion of my flat statementPost by mainframetech
DON'T GIVE ME THAT COVERUP CRAP! The photo of the BOH that we have is
perfectly valid and clear for the purpose of seeing a bullet hole. But
there is none there. The photo shows the areas where the pathologists
said the bullet hole was located, but there's nothing there. And you
won't want to hear it, but the photo of the BOH is also very WRONG, since
there were over 39 eyewitnesses that there was a 'large hole' in the BOH,
right where the photo shows hair and no hole. Not only do the photos show
falseness in the reporting, but they prove they were altered as well. If
the medical examiners saw those photos, then there's no doubt they got the
wrong conclusions as to the cause of death. Naturally, the LNs reading
this will ignore completely the photographic proof just shown.
So you think your amateurish opinion based on looking at one photo trumpsDON'T GIVE ME THAT COVERUP CRAP! The photo of the BOH that we have is
perfectly valid and clear for the purpose of seeing a bullet hole. But
there is none there. The photo shows the areas where the pathologists
said the bullet hole was located, but there's nothing there. And you
won't want to hear it, but the photo of the BOH is also very WRONG, since
there were over 39 eyewitnesses that there was a 'large hole' in the BOH,
right where the photo shows hair and no hole. Not only do the photos show
falseness in the reporting, but they prove they were altered as well. If
the medical examiners saw those photos, then there's no doubt they got the
wrong conclusions as to the cause of death. Naturally, the LNs reading
this will ignore completely the photographic proof just shown.
the findings of the 3 pathologists who had the body in front of them as
well as teams of highly qualified review panels who saw so many more
photos as well as x-rays.
of what I saw is somehow more right?
Post by mainframetech
Then why didn't you take the
challenge when I first made it, to point out the bullet hole location
using the information from the pathologists as to the location of the
bullet hole?
I'm not dumb enough to think by looking at one photo that I can make aThen why didn't you take the
challenge when I first made it, to point out the bullet hole location
using the information from the pathologists as to the location of the
bullet hole?
better judgement about an entry wound in JFK's head than the original
pathologists who saw the body and the review panels who saw so many more
and better quality photos than I have.
Post by bigdog
I don't need to see the bullet hole. Extremely qualified people who saw
many more and better photos as well as x-rays saw it. They don't need me
to confirm their findings.
So you confirm that YOU can't see anything.I don't need to see the bullet hole. Extremely qualified people who saw
many more and better photos as well as x-rays saw it. They don't need me
to confirm their findings.
Post by bigdog
that of the original pathology team and all the review panels. Is there no
end to your silliness. Apparently not.
claims there was a blowout in the BOH. I know better.
isn't, it is elsewhere. I'm not going to dismiss the unanimous opinion of
Humes said it was a bloodclot. Don't you believe him?Post by mainframetech
I never
heard you comment after looking, or did you avoid looking too so you could
have 'plausible denial'? It doesn't take experts to see that there is no
bullet hole in the BOH of that photo, and one photo is all that's needed
to tell that there's no bullet hole.
Amazing how you think by looking at one photo your opinion should trumpI never
heard you comment after looking, or did you avoid looking too so you could
have 'plausible denial'? It doesn't take experts to see that there is no
bullet hole in the BOH of that photo, and one photo is all that's needed
to tell that there's no bullet hole.
that of the original pathology team and all the review panels. Is there no
end to your silliness. Apparently not.
Post by mainframetech
As well, you haven't found any explanation for there to be hair all
over the BOH, when over 39 eyewitnesses said they saw a 'large hole'
there. Many of them were medically trained and knew what they were
describing.
You are the one who needs to explain that conundrum. You are the one whoAs well, you haven't found any explanation for there to be hair all
over the BOH, when over 39 eyewitnesses said they saw a 'large hole'
there. Many of them were medically trained and knew what they were
describing.
claims there was a blowout in the BOH. I know better.
Post by mainframetech
I'm having a hard time believing that you fell for that, since it was
"Humes??? comments regarding the supposed higher wound during his
HSCA testimony are particularly telling. After several failed attempts to
get both Humes and Boswell to agree the inshoot was high, the
HSCA???s Charles Petty, MD had another go with Humes, this time
concerning the possibility a red spot in the autopsy photos visible at the
top of JFK???s otherwise pristine rear scalp was the inshoot. Gazing
together at the photograph showing the all but unblemished rear of
???I don???t know what that [red spot] is. No. 1, I can assure
you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no
defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don???t
know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don???t, I
just don???t know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance.???
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm
As I said, I don't know whether that red spot is the bullet hole. If itI'm having a hard time believing that you fell for that, since it was
"Humes??? comments regarding the supposed higher wound during his
HSCA testimony are particularly telling. After several failed attempts to
get both Humes and Boswell to agree the inshoot was high, the
HSCA???s Charles Petty, MD had another go with Humes, this time
concerning the possibility a red spot in the autopsy photos visible at the
top of JFK???s otherwise pristine rear scalp was the inshoot. Gazing
together at the photograph showing the all but unblemished rear of
???I don???t know what that [red spot] is. No. 1, I can assure
you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no
defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don???t
know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don???t, I
just don???t know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance.???
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm
isn't, it is elsewhere. I'm not going to dismiss the unanimous opinion of
Post by bigdog
every medical examiner who saw so much more evidence than I have just
because I don't see an obvious bullet hole. Why would you do so?
the review panels who saw so much more. Absurd.
So you think that by refusing to look at the evidence yourself andevery medical examiner who saw so much more evidence than I have just
because I don't see an obvious bullet hole. Why would you do so?
Post by mainframetech
expert to determine if there was a bullet-sized hole in the BOH. Anyone
can see plainly that there is no such thing.
So you think by looking at one photo you can make a better judgement thanPost by bigdog
What I do know is that at scalp had been pulled away from the
skull and if it was pulled back up for that picture, it may not have lined
up with the hole in the scalp making the hole harder to see. It's also
possible the entry wound is hidden under the hair. In any case, it would
be very silly of me to think with my complete lack of training in forensic
medicine that I could look at one photo and make a better determination
than the three pathologists who conducted the autopsy and teams of the
best medical examiners in the country who got to see far more and better
quality photos and x-rays than I have. What kind of moron would do
something like that?
The moron would be the one that thought that it would have to take anWhat I do know is that at scalp had been pulled away from the
skull and if it was pulled back up for that picture, it may not have lined
up with the hole in the scalp making the hole harder to see. It's also
possible the entry wound is hidden under the hair. In any case, it would
be very silly of me to think with my complete lack of training in forensic
medicine that I could look at one photo and make a better determination
than the three pathologists who conducted the autopsy and teams of the
best medical examiners in the country who got to see far more and better
quality photos and x-rays than I have. What kind of moron would do
something like that?
expert to determine if there was a bullet-sized hole in the BOH. Anyone
can see plainly that there is no such thing.
the review panels who saw so much more. Absurd.
acccepting the word of professional liars that makes you better
informed? Ludicrous.
Post by bigdog
the BOH. Brilliant work, Sherlock. Did the people who altered the photo to
hide the big hole forget to alter it to show a little hole?
stated that seriously. Amazing these klutzes who masterminded this
conspiracy did so many dumb things yet still pulled it off and have gotten
away with it all these years. They couldn't hire competent gunmen. They
didn't give them decent ammo. They put an army of shooters in Dealey Plaza
and then tried to blame one man. They planted a bullet at Parkland but put
it on the wrong gurney. They sent a guy to kill Oswald but he didn't get
there at the announced time of the transfer. They played a ridiculous game
of musical caskets at Bethesda instead of just having the pathologists
falsify the report. You claim they falsified the BOH photo but forgot to
put in an entrance wound. They forgot to alter the photo that shows a
bullet hole in the forehead/temple. All this and about a dozen other
things that I've forgotten about. You have to believe they made all these
mistakes and yet still got away with the crime of the century. It is truly
amazing the things you are willing to convince yourself of to fool
yourself into believing in a non-existent conspiracy.
drawings for the HSCA. They had the HSCA continue with the cover up but
forgot to tell them to conclude that there was only one shooter. What
morons.
Well, in fact Baden personally told DOX to alter her drawings to make itPost by mainframetech
which you tend to do. I've pointed out that the photo of the BOH was
altered, and there is no doubt about it.
Oh, so you are using a altered photo to prove there was no entry wound inPost by bigdog
You are making a big deal about not being able to see a small entry wound
in the BOH. Apparently it doesn't bother you that the large blowout in the
BOH that you claim was there doesn't show up in that photo either. Got any
explanation for that?
Of course! I've addressed that recently. You probably missed it,You are making a big deal about not being able to see a small entry wound
in the BOH. Apparently it doesn't bother you that the large blowout in the
BOH that you claim was there doesn't show up in that photo either. Got any
explanation for that?
which you tend to do. I've pointed out that the photo of the BOH was
altered, and there is no doubt about it.
the BOH. Brilliant work, Sherlock. Did the people who altered the photo to
hide the big hole forget to alter it to show a little hole?
Post by mainframetech
Sworn testimony says there was a
'large hole' there, and yet the photo shows what the original government
report told about, which was no large hole in the BOH. Whoever altered
the autopsy photos forgot to put in the bullet hole,
I suggested that facetiously before I read your comment in which youSworn testimony says there was a
'large hole' there, and yet the photo shows what the original government
report told about, which was no large hole in the BOH. Whoever altered
the autopsy photos forgot to put in the bullet hole,
stated that seriously. Amazing these klutzes who masterminded this
conspiracy did so many dumb things yet still pulled it off and have gotten
away with it all these years. They couldn't hire competent gunmen. They
didn't give them decent ammo. They put an army of shooters in Dealey Plaza
and then tried to blame one man. They planted a bullet at Parkland but put
it on the wrong gurney. They sent a guy to kill Oswald but he didn't get
there at the announced time of the transfer. They played a ridiculous game
of musical caskets at Bethesda instead of just having the pathologists
falsify the report. You claim they falsified the BOH photo but forgot to
put in an entrance wound. They forgot to alter the photo that shows a
bullet hole in the forehead/temple. All this and about a dozen other
things that I've forgotten about. You have to believe they made all these
mistakes and yet still got away with the crime of the century. It is truly
amazing the things you are willing to convince yourself of to fool
yourself into believing in a non-existent conspiracy.
Post by mainframetech
but they didn't
forget to tell Ida Dox to put it in to her drawing of the original photo.
Talk about hilarious! The drawing has a bullet hole, and the photo it
came from has nothing! LOL!
Oh, so they were still engineering the cover up when Ida Dox produced thebut they didn't
forget to tell Ida Dox to put it in to her drawing of the original photo.
Talk about hilarious! The drawing has a bullet hole, and the photo it
came from has nothing! LOL!
drawings for the HSCA. They had the HSCA continue with the cover up but
forgot to tell them to conclude that there was only one shooter. What
morons.
look more like a bullet wound. You never talked to Baden in person. I did.
You are not a researcher. I am not allowed to tell you what you are, but
it ain't nice.
Post by bigdog
different questions.
caskets arrived at different times. You still can't.
and you still can't.
casket.
so.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=708#relPageId=3&tab=page
He does not say he saw a bronze casket come out of the Navy ambulance. He
saw one casket. Period. You have no one who saw two caskets.
autopsy at 7:17 and pretending he said that was the time of arrival. Why
do you continue with this fabrication which you know is false?
arrived at that time and you know it yet continue to claim that is the
case.
arrived at the morgue 42 minutes apart. The first time is an estimate and
the second time isn't even a time of arrival.
Post by mainframetech
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
Yes it does so I ask you again. Why would you expect the same answers tohttp://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
Post by bigdog
Depends on the questions.Post by mainframetech
see the difference. And it's not due to different questions.
Why would you expect him to give the same answers to different questions?Post by bigdog
Both were interviews and the questions were different so naturally the
answers would be different.
Oh, get away! His 2 statements did not agree, and it is simple toPost by mainframetech
Go ahead, look for the bullet entry! When you can't find it, you'll
have to call Lipsey a liar.
And don't forget his mismatch in his HSCA statement and his video.
More lies.
There were no lies in either of the two statements. They are compatible.Go ahead, look for the bullet entry! When you can't find it, you'll
have to call Lipsey a liar.
And don't forget his mismatch in his HSCA statement and his video.
More lies.
Both were interviews and the questions were different so naturally the
answers would be different.
see the difference. And it's not due to different questions.
different questions.
Post by mainframetech
If I am wrong you should be able to point to a witness that said twoPost by bigdog
who weighed in described one casket.
WRONG!Post by mainframetech
there were 2 caskets and they arrived at different times, and you still
try to pretend that the evidence didn't happen! That's weird! You base
your imaginary story on guesses as to road conditions, and speed of
driving, when you have flat statements of what had transpired in reality.
And of course, you've left out the time spent at the main entrance while
the family got out of the ambulance.
There is no sworn testimony by anyone that two caskets arrived. EverybodyPost by bigdog
imaginary shipping casket to get to Bethesda 42 minute before the bronze
casket. For one it's only a 40 minute drive from Andrews to Bethesda and
that is if you don't have a police escort. The ambulance had a huge head
start on any shipping casket that would have been unloaded from AF1 after
all the cameras and witnesses had left the area. Even if the shipping
casket had been sent to Bethesda by teleportation, it could not have
arrived 42 minutes before the bronze casket.
I wonder about you. You get sworn testimony and corroboration thatPost by mainframetech
Now here's a final statement from Lipsey, since you're so determined to
"The ceremonial troop in Washington had been arranged to meet the body at
Andrews. Put it in a hearse. We had a decoy hearse because we knew there
was a mob waiting at Bethesda Naval Hospital. So we got in a couple of
these helicopters with our honor guard when they left and flew over to the
hospital to get there before they did. And when they came in, one of the
hearses went right up to the front door. All of the crowd, of course,
rushed over there. The one with the body in it went around to the back
where the morgue was and we unloaded it. We met them in the back and
unloaded it right there to avoid the news media and the crowd and
everything else."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
And while Lipsey said the casket went by road, there was no choice that
it went by helicopter because it got to the morgue 42 minutes BEFORE the
empty Bronze casket. Lipsey has clearly said there were 2 ambulances, one
was 'decoy', and one went to the back door with the body, and the other
went to the main entrance.
I've showed you the time line that would have made it impossible for yourNow here's a final statement from Lipsey, since you're so determined to
"The ceremonial troop in Washington had been arranged to meet the body at
Andrews. Put it in a hearse. We had a decoy hearse because we knew there
was a mob waiting at Bethesda Naval Hospital. So we got in a couple of
these helicopters with our honor guard when they left and flew over to the
hospital to get there before they did. And when they came in, one of the
hearses went right up to the front door. All of the crowd, of course,
rushed over there. The one with the body in it went around to the back
where the morgue was and we unloaded it. We met them in the back and
unloaded it right there to avoid the news media and the crowd and
everything else."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
And while Lipsey said the casket went by road, there was no choice that
it went by helicopter because it got to the morgue 42 minutes BEFORE the
empty Bronze casket. Lipsey has clearly said there were 2 ambulances, one
was 'decoy', and one went to the back door with the body, and the other
went to the main entrance.
imaginary shipping casket to get to Bethesda 42 minute before the bronze
casket. For one it's only a 40 minute drive from Andrews to Bethesda and
that is if you don't have a police escort. The ambulance had a huge head
start on any shipping casket that would have been unloaded from AF1 after
all the cameras and witnesses had left the area. Even if the shipping
casket had been sent to Bethesda by teleportation, it could not have
arrived 42 minutes before the bronze casket.
there were 2 caskets and they arrived at different times, and you still
try to pretend that the evidence didn't happen! That's weird! You base
your imaginary story on guesses as to road conditions, and speed of
driving, when you have flat statements of what had transpired in reality.
And of course, you've left out the time spent at the main entrance while
the family got out of the ambulance.
who weighed in described one casket.
caskets arrived at different times. You still can't.
Post by mainframetech
And you've been given an answer to that many times. Don't
begin to pretend that you never heard the answer.
You've never cited a single witness who said they saw two caskets arriveAnd you've been given an answer to that many times. Don't
begin to pretend that you never heard the answer.
and you still can't.
Post by mainframetech
Dennis David gave his
statement that he helped to bring in the SHIPPING casket, and then at
least a half hour later he saw the motorcade and ambulance that Jackie was
in with the Bronze casket arrive at the main entrance of the hospital.
The family came in and was taken by elevator to the 17th floor to the VIP
suite.
He saw the family dropped off at the front but didn't say he saw anotherDennis David gave his
statement that he helped to bring in the SHIPPING casket, and then at
least a half hour later he saw the motorcade and ambulance that Jackie was
in with the Bronze casket arrive at the main entrance of the hospital.
The family came in and was taken by elevator to the 17th floor to the VIP
suite.
casket.
Post by mainframetech
So you've got the same person seeing separate casket arrivals with
time in between.
Point to where he said he saw a second casket. Can't do it? Didn't thinkSo you've got the same person seeing separate casket arrivals with
time in between.
so.
Post by mainframetech
He brought in the SHIPPING casket at 6:35pm, and after
at least a half hour (by his own statement) he saw the ambulance with the
Bronze casket from AF1 stop at the main entrance.
Quote him saying he saw a bronze casket in addition to the shippingHe brought in the SHIPPING casket at 6:35pm, and after
at least a half hour (by his own statement) he saw the ambulance with the
Bronze casket from AF1 stop at the main entrance.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=708#relPageId=3&tab=page
He does not say he saw a bronze casket come out of the Navy ambulance. He
saw one casket. Period. You have no one who saw two caskets.
Post by mainframetech
That makes it about
7:05pm for the arrival at the main entrance, and then the ambulance let
off the family and went around back to the morgue, which should be another
10 minutes, which makes it 7:17pm that the Bronze casket reached the
morgue.
Here you go again using Sibert's statement the body was being prepared forThat makes it about
7:05pm for the arrival at the main entrance, and then the ambulance let
off the family and went around back to the morgue, which should be another
10 minutes, which makes it 7:17pm that the Bronze casket reached the
morgue.
autopsy at 7:17 and pretending he said that was the time of arrival. Why
do you continue with this fabrication which you know is false?
Post by mainframetech
was the beginning of preparation supposedly, and Sibert was the one saying
it.
It was NOT the time the body arrived at the morgue. No one said a bodyPost by bigdog
They differed on the time of arrival
and the type of casket but nobody said two caskets arrived. Nobody except
silly conspiracy hobbyists who seem to be incapable of logical thought.
WRONG! See above.They differed on the time of arrival
and the type of casket but nobody said two caskets arrived. Nobody except
silly conspiracy hobbyists who seem to be incapable of logical thought.
Post by bigdog
You can add a couple minutes it would have taken to drop the passengers
off at the front entrance and then drive around to the morgue loading
dock. You still can't come close to getting your helicopter to Bethesda 42
minutes before bronze casket. Your 42 minute time differential is
ludicrous. For one you are comparing one person's ESTIMATE of the time of
arrival with Sibert's statement that by 7:17 the body was being prepared
for autopsy.
Sibert was clear, the body was NOT being prepared at that time, thatYou can add a couple minutes it would have taken to drop the passengers
off at the front entrance and then drive around to the morgue loading
dock. You still can't come close to getting your helicopter to Bethesda 42
minutes before bronze casket. Your 42 minute time differential is
ludicrous. For one you are comparing one person's ESTIMATE of the time of
arrival with Sibert's statement that by 7:17 the body was being prepared
for autopsy.
was the beginning of preparation supposedly, and Sibert was the one saying
it.
arrived at that time and you know it yet continue to claim that is the
case.
Post by mainframetech
timing is shown by your foolish comments about the time. There is indeed
42 minutes, from 6:35pm to 7:17pm.
So you can do simple arithmetic. That doesn't establish that two casketsPost by bigdog
You aren't even comparing two time of arrival estimates. How
silly is that? Your 42 minute time differential has been refuted just
about every way imaginable and yet you refuse to let go of it. It is an
essential component for what you want to believe happened and so you cling
to it no matter how many ways it is shown to you that it is impossible.
You might fool yourself with this nonsense but no reasonable person is
going to be swayed by such drivel. IOW, you are wasting your time, but
that pretty much describes 54 years of the conspiracy hobby.
Saying it won't make it so. Your complete inability to follow theYou aren't even comparing two time of arrival estimates. How
silly is that? Your 42 minute time differential has been refuted just
about every way imaginable and yet you refuse to let go of it. It is an
essential component for what you want to believe happened and so you cling
to it no matter how many ways it is shown to you that it is impossible.
You might fool yourself with this nonsense but no reasonable person is
going to be swayed by such drivel. IOW, you are wasting your time, but
that pretty much describes 54 years of the conspiracy hobby.
timing is shown by your foolish comments about the time. There is indeed
42 minutes, from 6:35pm to 7:17pm.
arrived at the morgue 42 minutes apart. The first time is an estimate and
the second time isn't even a time of arrival.
Post by mainframetech
That's 42 minutes that Humes and
Boswell had to do their clandestine work on the body. At 7:17pm as shown
above, the Bronze casket arrives for the first time, and Humes and Boswell
have to stop any work.
You just pile one silly conclusion on top of another.That's 42 minutes that Humes and
Boswell had to do their clandestine work on the body. At 7:17pm as shown
above, the Bronze casket arrives for the first time, and Humes and Boswell
have to stop any work.
Post by mainframetech
Further, though it was Sibert that said the preparation began at
7:17pm, that left almost an hour to sit around.
So now we are up to almost an hour. Why stop there.Further, though it was Sibert that said the preparation began at
7:17pm, that left almost an hour to sit around.
Post by mainframetech
I don't think that's what
happened. I think that Sibert and O'Neill sent out the Bronze casket now
with the body in it, to be found by the honor team and to be brought back
at 8:00pm, and with the help of Sibert and O'Neill, they took the body out
of the casket as they told everyone, and put it on the table, which
satisfied the narrative for the FBI men. That was the third arrival, the
second for the Bronze casket.
Aren't you the least bit embarrassed to suggest something so ridiculous?I don't think that's what
happened. I think that Sibert and O'Neill sent out the Bronze casket now
with the body in it, to be found by the honor team and to be brought back
at 8:00pm, and with the help of Sibert and O'Neill, they took the body out
of the casket as they told everyone, and put it on the table, which
satisfied the narrative for the FBI men. That was the third arrival, the
second for the Bronze casket.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-21 14:23:44 UTC
Post by mainframetech
of what I saw is somehow more right? Then why didn't you take the
challenge when I first made it, to point out the bullet hole location
using the information from the pathologists as to the location of the
bullet hole? Was it because you couldn't see any bullet hole? I never
heard you comment after looking, or did you avoid looking too so you could
have 'plausible denial'? It doesn't take experts to see that there is no
bullet hole in the BOH of that photo, and one photo is all that's needed
to tell that there's no bullet hole.
As well, you haven't found any explanation for there to be hair all
over the BOH, when over 39 eyewitnesses said they saw a 'large hole'
there. Many of them were medically trained and knew what they were
describing.
I'm having a hard time believing that you fell for that, since it was
"Humes??? comments regarding the supposed higher wound during his
HSCA testimony are particularly telling. After several failed attempts to
get both Humes and Boswell to agree the inshoot was high, the
HSCA???s Charles Petty, MD had another go with Humes, this time
concerning the possibility a red spot in the autopsy photos visible at the
top of JFK???s otherwise pristine rear scalp was the inshoot. Gazing
together at the photograph showing the all but unblemished rear of
???I don???t know what that [red spot] is. No. 1, I can assure
you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no
defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don???t
know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don???t, I
just don???t know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance.???
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm
expert to determine if there was a bullet-sized hole in the BOH. Anyone
can see plainly that there is no such thing.
which you tend to do. I've pointed out that the photo of the BOH was
altered, and there is no doubt about it. Sworn testimony says there was a
'large hole' there, and yet the photo shows what the original government
report told about, which was no large hole in the BOH. Whoever altered
the autopsy photos forgot to put in the bullet hole, but they didn't
forget to tell Ida Dox to put it in to her drawing of the original photo.
Talk about hilarious! The drawing has a bullet hole, and the photo it
came from has nothing! LOL!
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
begin to pretend that you never heard the answer. Dennis David gave his
statement that he helped to bring in the SHIPPING casket, and then at
least a half hour later he saw the motorcade and ambulance that Jackie was
in with the Bronze casket arrive at the main entrance of the hospital.
The family came in and was taken by elevator to the 17th floor to the VIP
suite.
So you've got the same person seeing separate casket arrivals with
time in between. He brought in the SHIPPING casket at 6:35pm, and after
at least a half hour (by his own statement) he saw the ambulance with the
Bronze casket from AF1 stop at the main entrance. That makes it about
7:05pm for the arrival at the main entrance, and then the ambulance let
off the family and went around back to the morgue, which should be another
10 minutes, which makes it 7:17pm that the Bronze casket reached the
morgue.
was the beginning of preparation supposedly, and Sibert was the one saying
it.
timing is shown by your foolish comments about the time. There is indeed
42 minutes, from 6:35pm to 7:17pm. That's 42 minutes that Humes and
Boswell had to do their clandestine work on the body. At 7:17pm as shown
above, the Bronze casket arrives for the first time, and Humes and Boswell
have to stop any work.
Further, though it was Sibert that said the preparation began at
7:17pm, that left almost an hour to sit around. I don't think that's what
OK. but preparation does not mean that everyone was there and that thePost by bigdog
the findings of the 3 pathologists who had the body in front of them as
well as teams of highly qualified review panels who saw so many more
photos as well as x-rays.
WRONG as usual! So you think your amateur opinion of my flat statementPost by mainframetech
perfectly valid and clear for the purpose of seeing a bullet hole. But
there is none there. The photo shows the areas where the pathologists
said the bullet hole was located, but there's nothing there. And you
won't want to hear it, but the photo of the BOH is also very WRONG, since
there were over 39 eyewitnesses that there was a 'large hole' in the BOH,
right where the photo shows hair and no hole. Not only do the photos show
falseness in the reporting, but they prove they were altered as well. If
the medical examiners saw those photos, then there's no doubt they got the
wrong conclusions as to the cause of death. Naturally, the LNs reading
this will ignore completely the photographic proof just shown.
So you think your amateurish opinion based on looking at one photo trumpsPost by bigdog
right cheek and if Lipsey saw that flap in that configuration is would
look like damage to the face. Bill Newman saw the same thing and believed
JFK's right hear had been blown off.
no idea what those other photos revealed. The men who did see those photos
and were trained forensic medical examiners all saw enough to convince
them a bullet entered the BOH. That's good enough for me.
DON'T GIVE ME THAT COVERUP CRAP! The photo of the BOH that we have isPost by mainframetech
the face was destroyed (right side). If the autopsy photos are to be
believed, there was no damage to that area.
We see in the Z-film that the bone flap above the ear hung down over thePost by bigdog
"Q: I have a question. How did you go from when Air Force One landed? How
did you go from Andrews to Bethesda itself?
LIPSEY: We accompanied General Wehle in a helicopter.
Q: In a helicopter. While the body was being driven?
LIPSEY: Right."
"Q: Okay, getting back to the bullets themselves, not the bullets
themselves but the entrances, can you just go over again the entrances as
you remember them?
LIPSEY: Alright, as I remember them there was one bullet that went in the
back of the head that exited and blew away part of his face. And that was
sort of high up, not high up but like this little crown on the back of
your head right there, three or four inches above your neck. And then the
other one entered at more of less the top of the neck, the other one
entered more of less at the bottom of the neck.
Q: Okay, so that would be up where the crown, not the top of the head?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the rear crown.
Q: Where that point might be on the skull bone?
LIPSEY: Exactly.
Q: Then one approximately several inches lower?
LIPSEY: Well not several but two or three inches lower.
Q: Still in the head? Or what we would call???
LIPSEY: Closer to the neck.
Q: Closer to the neck? And than one in the neck?
LIPSEY: In the lower neck region.
Q: In the back?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the very -- right as the ....
Q: Let's go back over things. Sometimes visual aids you forget. Okay, and
then according to the autopsy doctors they feel the one that entered in the
skull, in the rear of the head, exited the right side of the head?
LIPSEY: The right front, you know, the face. Not the right top, the right
front. The facial part of your face. In other words...
Q: Did that destroy his face at all? You say Presidents Kennedy, was his
face distorted?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the right side. If you looked at him straight. If you looked
at him from the left you couldn???t see anything. If you looked at him
from the right side it was just physically part of it blown away.
Q: So that would be right here?
LIPSEY: Yeah, behind the eye and everything.
Q: Behind the eye? Was it all hair region or was it part of the actual face?
LIPSEY: To the best of my recollection it was part of the hair region and
part of the face region"
There are few discrepancies from the two accounts. In both cases he was
being interviewed so he was responding to the questions asked. Different
questions are going to draw different answers. If he didn't mention
something in one interview that he had in the other it just means he
wasn't asked about that particular item. The only discrepancy I noticed
was a minor one. In the 1978 interview he said he was present for most of
the autopsy, occasionally getting spelled by General Wehle. In the later
interview he said he was present for the entire autopsy, not mentioning
the occasional breaks he took. In both interviews he described the wounds
the same way. Two shot entered from behind. The head shot had exited from
the front right.
OK. Let's look at that bunch of statements. He is saying that partlyPost by mainframetech
Edward Reed had others that corroborated what he said. No one
corroborated what Lipsey said, and half of what he said disagreed with his
own statement made closer to the event itself. Remember that I suggested
that you compare Lipsey's statements in the video to his statements in the
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
Some interesting quotes from that 1978 interview, Lipsey's earliest on thePost by bigdog
wasn't there.
How easily you forget my point because it disproves you contention.Post by mainframetech
If you check the testimony of Edward Reed, X-ray Technician, he
helped bring in the body and he saw it was JFK when the SHIPPING casket
was opened in the morgue. He helped put the body on the table. He
doesn't seem to mention any Richard Lipsey present.
Lipsey doesn't mention Reed either so by your reasoning that means ReedPost by Steve M. Galbraith
Most of what he recites refutes the Lifton body switching theory but he
does repeat the claim/belief that JFK was in a "body bag" when he was
removed from the casket.
Most of what he recites refutes the Lifton body switching theory but he
does repeat the claim/belief that JFK was in a "body bag" when he was
removed from the casket.
helped bring in the body and he saw it was JFK when the SHIPPING casket
was opened in the morgue. He helped put the body on the table. He
doesn't seem to mention any Richard Lipsey present.
wasn't there.
Edward Reed had others that corroborated what he said. No one
corroborated what Lipsey said, and half of what he said disagreed with his
own statement made closer to the event itself. Remember that I suggested
that you compare Lipsey's statements in the video to his statements in the
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
"Q: I have a question. How did you go from when Air Force One landed? How
did you go from Andrews to Bethesda itself?
LIPSEY: We accompanied General Wehle in a helicopter.
Q: In a helicopter. While the body was being driven?
LIPSEY: Right."
"Q: Okay, getting back to the bullets themselves, not the bullets
themselves but the entrances, can you just go over again the entrances as
you remember them?
LIPSEY: Alright, as I remember them there was one bullet that went in the
back of the head that exited and blew away part of his face. And that was
sort of high up, not high up but like this little crown on the back of
your head right there, three or four inches above your neck. And then the
other one entered at more of less the top of the neck, the other one
entered more of less at the bottom of the neck.
Q: Okay, so that would be up where the crown, not the top of the head?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the rear crown.
Q: Where that point might be on the skull bone?
LIPSEY: Exactly.
Q: Then one approximately several inches lower?
LIPSEY: Well not several but two or three inches lower.
Q: Still in the head? Or what we would call???
LIPSEY: Closer to the neck.
Q: Closer to the neck? And than one in the neck?
LIPSEY: In the lower neck region.
Q: In the back?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the very -- right as the ....
Q: Let's go back over things. Sometimes visual aids you forget. Okay, and
then according to the autopsy doctors they feel the one that entered in the
skull, in the rear of the head, exited the right side of the head?
LIPSEY: The right front, you know, the face. Not the right top, the right
front. The facial part of your face. In other words...
Q: Did that destroy his face at all? You say Presidents Kennedy, was his
face distorted?
LIPSEY: Yeah, the right side. If you looked at him straight. If you looked
at him from the left you couldn???t see anything. If you looked at him
from the right side it was just physically part of it blown away.
Q: So that would be right here?
LIPSEY: Yeah, behind the eye and everything.
Q: Behind the eye? Was it all hair region or was it part of the actual face?
LIPSEY: To the best of my recollection it was part of the hair region and
part of the face region"
There are few discrepancies from the two accounts. In both cases he was
being interviewed so he was responding to the questions asked. Different
questions are going to draw different answers. If he didn't mention
something in one interview that he had in the other it just means he
wasn't asked about that particular item. The only discrepancy I noticed
was a minor one. In the 1978 interview he said he was present for most of
the autopsy, occasionally getting spelled by General Wehle. In the later
interview he said he was present for the entire autopsy, not mentioning
the occasional breaks he took. In both interviews he described the wounds
the same way. Two shot entered from behind. The head shot had exited from
the front right.
the face was destroyed (right side). If the autopsy photos are to be
believed, there was no damage to that area.
right cheek and if Lipsey saw that flap in that configuration is would
look like damage to the face. Bill Newman saw the same thing and believed
JFK's right hear had been blown off.
Post by mainframetech
He said what he heard the
pathologists say, which is that 2 bullets struck the BOH, yet when we look
You have seen one BOH photo which was just one of many taken and you haveHe said what he heard the
pathologists say, which is that 2 bullets struck the BOH, yet when we look
no idea what those other photos revealed. The men who did see those photos
and were trained forensic medical examiners all saw enough to convince
them a bullet entered the BOH. That's good enough for me.
perfectly valid and clear for the purpose of seeing a bullet hole. But
there is none there. The photo shows the areas where the pathologists
said the bullet hole was located, but there's nothing there. And you
won't want to hear it, but the photo of the BOH is also very WRONG, since
there were over 39 eyewitnesses that there was a 'large hole' in the BOH,
right where the photo shows hair and no hole. Not only do the photos show
falseness in the reporting, but they prove they were altered as well. If
the medical examiners saw those photos, then there's no doubt they got the
wrong conclusions as to the cause of death. Naturally, the LNs reading
this will ignore completely the photographic proof just shown.
the findings of the 3 pathologists who had the body in front of them as
well as teams of highly qualified review panels who saw so many more
photos as well as x-rays.
of what I saw is somehow more right? Then why didn't you take the
challenge when I first made it, to point out the bullet hole location
using the information from the pathologists as to the location of the
bullet hole? Was it because you couldn't see any bullet hole? I never
heard you comment after looking, or did you avoid looking too so you could
have 'plausible denial'? It doesn't take experts to see that there is no
bullet hole in the BOH of that photo, and one photo is all that's needed
to tell that there's no bullet hole.
As well, you haven't found any explanation for there to be hair all
over the BOH, when over 39 eyewitnesses said they saw a 'large hole'
there. Many of them were medically trained and knew what they were
describing.
I'm having a hard time believing that you fell for that, since it was
"Humes??? comments regarding the supposed higher wound during his
HSCA testimony are particularly telling. After several failed attempts to
get both Humes and Boswell to agree the inshoot was high, the
HSCA???s Charles Petty, MD had another go with Humes, this time
concerning the possibility a red spot in the autopsy photos visible at the
top of JFK???s otherwise pristine rear scalp was the inshoot. Gazing
together at the photograph showing the all but unblemished rear of
???I don???t know what that [red spot] is. No. 1, I can assure
you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no
defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don???t
know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don???t, I
just don???t know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of
entrance.???
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm
Post by bigdog
What I do know is that at scalp had been pulled away from the
skull and if it was pulled back up for that picture, it may not have lined
up with the hole in the scalp making the hole harder to see. It's also
possible the entry wound is hidden under the hair. In any case, it would
be very silly of me to think with my complete lack of training in forensic
medicine that I could look at one photo and make a better determination
than the three pathologists who conducted the autopsy and teams of the
best medical examiners in the country who got to see far more and better
quality photos and x-rays than I have. What kind of moron would do
something like that?
The moron would be the one that thought that it would have to take anWhat I do know is that at scalp had been pulled away from the
skull and if it was pulled back up for that picture, it may not have lined
up with the hole in the scalp making the hole harder to see. It's also
possible the entry wound is hidden under the hair. In any case, it would
be very silly of me to think with my complete lack of training in forensic
medicine that I could look at one photo and make a better determination
than the three pathologists who conducted the autopsy and teams of the
best medical examiners in the country who got to see far more and better
quality photos and x-rays than I have. What kind of moron would do
something like that?
expert to determine if there was a bullet-sized hole in the BOH. Anyone
can see plainly that there is no such thing.
Post by bigdog
You are making a big deal about not being able to see a small entry wound
in the BOH. Apparently it doesn't bother you that the large blowout in the
BOH that you claim was there doesn't show up in that photo either. Got any
explanation for that?
Of course! I've addressed that recently. You probably missed it,You are making a big deal about not being able to see a small entry wound
in the BOH. Apparently it doesn't bother you that the large blowout in the
BOH that you claim was there doesn't show up in that photo either. Got any
explanation for that?
which you tend to do. I've pointed out that the photo of the BOH was
altered, and there is no doubt about it. Sworn testimony says there was a
'large hole' there, and yet the photo shows what the original government
report told about, which was no large hole in the BOH. Whoever altered
the autopsy photos forgot to put in the bullet hole, but they didn't
forget to tell Ida Dox to put it in to her drawing of the original photo.
Talk about hilarious! The drawing has a bullet hole, and the photo it
came from has nothing! LOL!
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
Post by bigdog
Depends on the questions.Post by mainframetech
see the difference. And it's not due to different questions.
Why would you expect him to give the same answers to different questions?Post by bigdog
Both were interviews and the questions were different so naturally the
answers would be different.
Oh, get away! His 2 statements did not agree, and it is simple toPost by mainframetech
Go ahead, look for the bullet entry! When you can't find it, you'll
have to call Lipsey a liar.
And don't forget his mismatch in his HSCA statement and his video.
More lies.
There were no lies in either of the two statements. They are compatible.Go ahead, look for the bullet entry! When you can't find it, you'll
have to call Lipsey a liar.
And don't forget his mismatch in his HSCA statement and his video.
More lies.
Both were interviews and the questions were different so naturally the
answers would be different.
see the difference. And it's not due to different questions.
Post by bigdog
who weighed in described one casket.
WRONG! And you've been given an answer to that many times. Don'tPost by mainframetech
there were 2 caskets and they arrived at different times, and you still
try to pretend that the evidence didn't happen! That's weird! You base
your imaginary story on guesses as to road conditions, and speed of
driving, when you have flat statements of what had transpired in reality.
And of course, you've left out the time spent at the main entrance while
the family got out of the ambulance.
There is no sworn testimony by anyone that two caskets arrived. EverybodyPost by bigdog
imaginary shipping casket to get to Bethesda 42 minute before the bronze
casket. For one it's only a 40 minute drive from Andrews to Bethesda and
that is if you don't have a police escort. The ambulance had a huge head
start on any shipping casket that would have been unloaded from AF1 after
all the cameras and witnesses had left the area. Even if the shipping
casket had been sent to Bethesda by teleportation, it could not have
arrived 42 minutes before the bronze casket.
I wonder about you. You get sworn testimony and corroboration thatPost by mainframetech
Now here's a final statement from Lipsey, since you're so determined to
"The ceremonial troop in Washington had been arranged to meet the body at
Andrews. Put it in a hearse. We had a decoy hearse because we knew there
was a mob waiting at Bethesda Naval Hospital. So we got in a couple of
these helicopters with our honor guard when they left and flew over to the
hospital to get there before they did. And when they came in, one of the
hearses went right up to the front door. All of the crowd, of course,
rushed over there. The one with the body in it went around to the back
where the morgue was and we unloaded it. We met them in the back and
unloaded it right there to avoid the news media and the crowd and
everything else."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
And while Lipsey said the casket went by road, there was no choice that
it went by helicopter because it got to the morgue 42 minutes BEFORE the
empty Bronze casket. Lipsey has clearly said there were 2 ambulances, one
was 'decoy', and one went to the back door with the body, and the other
went to the main entrance.
I've showed you the time line that would have made it impossible for yourNow here's a final statement from Lipsey, since you're so determined to
"The ceremonial troop in Washington had been arranged to meet the body at
Andrews. Put it in a hearse. We had a decoy hearse because we knew there
was a mob waiting at Bethesda Naval Hospital. So we got in a couple of
these helicopters with our honor guard when they left and flew over to the
hospital to get there before they did. And when they came in, one of the
hearses went right up to the front door. All of the crowd, of course,
rushed over there. The one with the body in it went around to the back
where the morgue was and we unloaded it. We met them in the back and
unloaded it right there to avoid the news media and the crowd and
everything else."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm
And while Lipsey said the casket went by road, there was no choice that
it went by helicopter because it got to the morgue 42 minutes BEFORE the
empty Bronze casket. Lipsey has clearly said there were 2 ambulances, one
was 'decoy', and one went to the back door with the body, and the other
went to the main entrance.
imaginary shipping casket to get to Bethesda 42 minute before the bronze
casket. For one it's only a 40 minute drive from Andrews to Bethesda and
that is if you don't have a police escort. The ambulance had a huge head
start on any shipping casket that would have been unloaded from AF1 after
all the cameras and witnesses had left the area. Even if the shipping
casket had been sent to Bethesda by teleportation, it could not have
arrived 42 minutes before the bronze casket.
there were 2 caskets and they arrived at different times, and you still
try to pretend that the evidence didn't happen! That's weird! You base
your imaginary story on guesses as to road conditions, and speed of
driving, when you have flat statements of what had transpired in reality.
And of course, you've left out the time spent at the main entrance while
the family got out of the ambulance.
who weighed in described one casket.
begin to pretend that you never heard the answer. Dennis David gave his
statement that he helped to bring in the SHIPPING casket, and then at
least a half hour later he saw the motorcade and ambulance that Jackie was
in with the Bronze casket arrive at the main entrance of the hospital.
The family came in and was taken by elevator to the 17th floor to the VIP
suite.
So you've got the same person seeing separate casket arrivals with
time in between. He brought in the SHIPPING casket at 6:35pm, and after
at least a half hour (by his own statement) he saw the ambulance with the
Bronze casket from AF1 stop at the main entrance. That makes it about
7:05pm for the arrival at the main entrance, and then the ambulance let
off the family and went around back to the morgue, which should be another
10 minutes, which makes it 7:17pm that the Bronze casket reached the
morgue.
Post by bigdog
They differed on the time of arrival
and the type of casket but nobody said two caskets arrived. Nobody except
silly conspiracy hobbyists who seem to be incapable of logical thought.
WRONG! See above.They differed on the time of arrival
and the type of casket but nobody said two caskets arrived. Nobody except
silly conspiracy hobbyists who seem to be incapable of logical thought.
Post by bigdog
You can add a couple minutes it would have taken to drop the passengers
off at the front entrance and then drive around to the morgue loading
dock. You still can't come close to getting your helicopter to Bethesda 42
minutes before bronze casket. Your 42 minute time differential is
ludicrous. For one you are comparing one person's ESTIMATE of the time of
arrival with Sibert's statement that by 7:17 the body was being prepared
for autopsy.
Sibert was clear, the body was NOT being prepared at that time, thatYou can add a couple minutes it would have taken to drop the passengers
off at the front entrance and then drive around to the morgue loading
dock. You still can't come close to getting your helicopter to Bethesda 42
minutes before bronze casket. Your 42 minute time differential is
ludicrous. For one you are comparing one person's ESTIMATE of the time of
arrival with Sibert's statement that by 7:17 the body was being prepared
for autopsy.
was the beginning of preparation supposedly, and Sibert was the one saying
it.
Post by bigdog
You aren't even comparing two time of arrival estimates. How
silly is that? Your 42 minute time differential has been refuted just
about every way imaginable and yet you refuse to let go of it. It is an
essential component for what you want to believe happened and so you cling
to it no matter how many ways it is shown to you that it is impossible.
You might fool yourself with this nonsense but no reasonable person is
going to be swayed by such drivel. IOW, you are wasting your time, but
that pretty much describes 54 years of the conspiracy hobby.
Saying it won't make it so. Your complete inability to follow theYou aren't even comparing two time of arrival estimates. How
silly is that? Your 42 minute time differential has been refuted just
about every way imaginable and yet you refuse to let go of it. It is an
essential component for what you want to believe happened and so you cling
to it no matter how many ways it is shown to you that it is impossible.
You might fool yourself with this nonsense but no reasonable person is
going to be swayed by such drivel. IOW, you are wasting your time, but
that pretty much describes 54 years of the conspiracy hobby.
timing is shown by your foolish comments about the time. There is indeed
42 minutes, from 6:35pm to 7:17pm. That's 42 minutes that Humes and
Boswell had to do their clandestine work on the body. At 7:17pm as shown
above, the Bronze casket arrives for the first time, and Humes and Boswell
have to stop any work.
Further, though it was Sibert that said the preparation began at
7:17pm, that left almost an hour to sit around. I don't think that's what
body was there. You are conflating again.
Post by mainframetech
happened. I think that Sibert and O'Neill sent out the Bronze casket now
with the body in it, to be found by the honor team and to be brought back
Sent out where? To Walter Reed for a secret team of doctors to work on it?happened. I think that Sibert and O'Neill sent out the Bronze casket now
with the body in it, to be found by the honor team and to be brought back
Post by mainframetech
at 8:00pm, and with the help of Sibert and O'Neill, they took the body out
of the casket as they told everyone, and put it on the table, which
satisfied the narrative for the FBI men. That was the third arrival, the
second for the Bronze casket.
They didn't take it out of a shipping casket.at 8:00pm, and with the help of Sibert and O'Neill, they took the body out
of the casket as they told everyone, and put it on the table, which
satisfied the narrative for the FBI men. That was the third arrival, the
second for the Bronze casket.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-05 23:15:32 UTC
Post by bigdog
gory mess which had no doubt also made a mess of the interior of the
casket.
All you have is imagination. We have facts. The body was placed in aPost by Steve M. Galbraith
Most of what he recites refutes the Lifton body switching theory but he
does repeat the claim/belief that JFK was in a "body bag" when he was
removed from the casket.
One of the explanations that I've read (I think it was the late conspiracy
author Harrison Livingstone who suggested it) for this was that the
plastic mattress or cover that was placed underneath JFK to prevent the
blood from dripping onto the casket stuck to his body. So it had to be
peeled off.
But he does say he lifted the casket from the ambulance limo, took it into
the morgue and helped remove JFK's body from it.
I can only imagine that by the time the body arrived at Bethesda it was aMost of what he recites refutes the Lifton body switching theory but he
does repeat the claim/belief that JFK was in a "body bag" when he was
removed from the casket.
One of the explanations that I've read (I think it was the late conspiracy
author Harrison Livingstone who suggested it) for this was that the
plastic mattress or cover that was placed underneath JFK to prevent the
blood from dripping onto the casket stuck to his body. So it had to be
peeled off.
But he does say he lifted the casket from the ambulance limo, took it into
the morgue and helped remove JFK's body from it.
gory mess which had no doubt also made a mess of the interior of the
casket.
plastic mattress pad to contain the fluids.