Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by Steve M. GalbraithPost by BT GeorgePost by n***@gmail.comI had never heard of it either. It's one more nail in the CT coffin.
Here's Bugliosi starting on page 392 from RECLAIMING HISTORY.
But though unnecessary, there is additional medical evidence--indeed,
conclusive proof--that the wound to the back of the president's head was
an entrance wound. The autopsy surgeons found 'coagulation necrosis of
the tissues' at the inner margins of the head wound. Dr. Wecht
acknowledged in 1967 that coagulation necrosis is a 'sure sign' of an
entrance wound. Although I haven't looked at more than fifty autopsy
reports in my career, I don't believe I've ever seen the term COAGULATION
NECROSIS in any of them. When I asked Dr. Wecht to define the term for
me, he wrote that 'in gunshot wounds of entrance, the dermis [outer layer
of skin] . . . shows microscopic changes in the collagen, the protein
material that comprises the dermis to a great extent. The changes in the
collagen fibers are caused by the thermal [heat] effects of the bullet in
distant wounds. In close range wounds, the changes are produced by the
hot gases emerging from the muzzle of the weapon. These collagen
alterations are referred to as coagulation necrosis. They cannot be seen
by the naked eye.'
In a follow-up phone conversation, Wecht said that although, as he
indicated earlier, not all entrance wounds have abrasion collars, 'ALL
have coagulation necrosis.' He acknowledged that findings of coagulation
necrosis do not normally appear in autopsy reports or those of other
prominent pathologists, repeating that changes to the dermis can only be
seen by use of a microscope.
'Doctor,' I said, you would agree that a finding of coagulation
necrosis in an autopsy report is a very sophisticated one, would you not?'
'Yes, I would.'
'How do you reconcile that, then, with the almost universal view that
the autopsy surgeons in the Kennedy case conducted a very inferior and
amateurish post-mortem?'
All Dr. Wecht could say was, 'I'll tell you where the coagulation
necrosis finding came from--Dr. Finck. He specializes in this type of
thing. I can guarantee you it didn't come from Humes or Boswell.' It
didn't come from too poor a source. As indicated, Dr. Finck at the time
was the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, and as Finck said, he 'was asked' by Humes to
participate in the autopsy 'specifically to interpret the wounds. . .It
was my mission in that autopsy room. My main mission was to study the
wounds.'
So we see that despite the insistent and strident claims by conspiracy
theorists that the fatal wound to the president's head was fired from his
right front, ALL of the medical and scientific evidence proves not just
beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt that it was fired from his
rear, and the wound to the backside of the president's head was an
entrance wound.
(The CAPS show Bugliosi's emphasis.)
Mark
Correct. And it is also an indication that (as Bugliosi himself takes
pains to note) the original autopsists were neither as incompetent, nor as
"out of their depth" as many CT's and some LN's have tended to think.
Indeed considering that they were not formally trained in *Forensic*
Pathology, and were under significant pressure from Admiral Burkley and
the Kennedy family to "hurry things up" and skip certain procedures, they
did a pretty admirable job.
Brock (BT) George
It's also additional evidence of why we use/need/have experts highly
trained to examine such issues. The conspiracy believers think they can
look at a photo or read a couple of medical articles and overnight become
experts on such highly technical matters.
If you think that, then you haven't listened to bd, who appears as the
guru of all professions.
bd isn't the one who is always telling us he knows more than the real
experts. He's the other guy. He's the one who trusts the experts.
Yep, but he talks like he knows all about it.
No, he talks like somebody who trusts what knowledgeable people have to
say rather than substitute his judgement for theirs.
If you want to be someone's zombie, that's fine. There's nothing wrong
with listening to someone, but just blindly following anything they say if
plain foolish.
Not nearly as foolish as thinking someone with no training and an
extremely limited view of the evidence can make a better judgement than
men who have made these various subjects their life's works and who have
seen far more of the evidence than you have. It is laughable that you
think by looking at a few leaked photos that you can reach a better
conclusion than the unanimous one reached by numerous medical examiners.
There isn't a single dissent among those men. That should tell you
something but evidently doesn't.
How stupid can humans get? If experts do not see the critical
photograph, or they do not see the part of a photo that gives away the
reason for death, then they will make a mistake. If they are misled, they
could make a mistake. By following them blindly no one would have ever
known that the kill shot was from the front, completely killing the whole
SBT and the WCR that depends on it. Experts can be misled or make a
mistake, since they're human. But of course, you knew all this from the
many other times you didn't understand it and had to ask about it.
Post by bigdogThe real reason you refuse to accept the conclusions of these men is
because you desperately want to believe things which are incompatible with
those conclusions. Rather than give up your cherished beliefs, you are
forced to invent one lame excuse after another not to accept what they ALL
have concluded. You don't want to know the truth. You want your theories
to be true.
Ah, the psychology guru today! Changed hats again. You know more of
the minds around you than you do your own. Geez! The image you must have
of yourself!
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechAn example is the phony game played by the HSCA who did
not have valid proof of a bullet hole in the BOH of JFK, so they used the
phony Ida Dox drawing that had a bullet hole in their report as proof!
A perfect example of what I just wrote.
Not really. Perhaps you'll explain that, since I can show solid
proof of my statement. Simply go to the link I will provide and read the
text, which explains that they used the drawing, but gave NO REASON for
doing it. Then go to the next page where they show the Drawing itself in
place of a photo that had no bullet hole in it:
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057a.htm
Pages 103-104
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechAny thinking person would find that one and point it out. I haven't
heard a single person here agree about that drawing and it's use as
'proof' of a bullet hole in the BOH! Not even a comment for it even!
Just blank. And no one wonders...sheesh!
I don't know of anyone who uses the Ida Dox drawing as proof of anything.
It was nothing more than a visual aid for presentation to HSCA because
apparently the Kennedy family did not want the actual photos put on public
display. The men who presented their findings did see the actual photos as
well as the x-rays and based their findings on those.
So what you're saying is that the authorities were giving out Ida Doxs
drawings from the first medical panel right through. And since we know
the BOH photo had NO BULLET HOLE and was used to PRETEND there was a
bullet hole in the BOH, that other photos were also drawn and shown to the
panels. So they never saw ANY real photos, only the Dox Drawings. Now is
that right?
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechhttps://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057a.htm
page 103-104
Once again you have inadvertently undercut one of your own arguments. For
many months you have been telling us that the reason the HSCA panel didn't
see your forehead/temple bullet hole is because they didn't enlarge the
photo. Now you have posted documentation in which it is stated they looked
at the photos with 10X magnification. Another of your silly arguments
bites the dust.
You're getting ridiculous again! Get a grip! Saying that they
looked at the photos at 10X magnification and actually doing it are 2
different things. Sine they showed no conscience in the one item, why
would they show it in another? First, If one doesn't look closely, and
just breezes through the SOD photo, the bullet hole cannot be easily seen.
Second, we don't know what they did, only what they SAID they did. And
anyone that would make up a phony excuse like the Kennedys didn't want any
one to see JFK in reality, was getting away with murder.
Yep, the LNs here need to look at themselves and wonder why none of
them think that there is anything wrong with the HSCA using drawing that
had false info in it, in place of a real photo with the real goods. And
there is NO GOOD ANSWER! It was done to cover up the fact that the
autopsy photo didn't have a BOH bullet hole in it. It was phony anyway
because it also didn't have the 'large hole' that over 39 eyewitnesses
saw, in the occipital area.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechThe problem is that his
error rate is higher than anyone's. He acts like he knew everything,
until you catch him at it, then he says 'I got it from an expert' whom he
doesn't give credit to.
So you think it makes more sense to do your own analysis rather than
trusting the unanimous opinions of knowledgeable people. I guess when they
all contradict what you want to believe, you have no choice.
WRONG! If the evidence says more than the people and their consensus,
it's time to look at it with your own eyes and logic.
I trust their trained eyes which saw all the evidence rather than what I
think I can determine by looking at a few leaked photos. I have no
training in forensic medicine. I wouldn't know any of the things I have
learned by LISTENING to what these highly trained men have to say about
the subject. But you want to ignore everything they have to say and
venture off on your own. It makes about as much sense as jumping into an
airplane and taking off believing you can learn to fly the thing on your
own.
WRONG once again! I listen to expert opinion, I'm just not a zombie
that accepts everything anyone in authority tells me. And if what I hear
doesn't make sense., or I've also heard an alternate version of something,
I look into that too.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechIf we believed
everything that MOST people believe, we'd be in really serious trouble.
It would be the end of innovation and invention. Human progress would
stop.
Innovation isn't called for her. It's trusting the tried and true. If you
want to reinvent the field of forensic medicine and substitute your own
silly analysis that's your business. I'll stick with people who know what
they are talking about. That ain't you.
I have not substituted ANY of my own analysis, since I didn't have to
analyze anything. If the 'experts' missed something, they are human and
can be misled. If I see something that doesn't fit what I was told by an
expert, I look at it and try to see which is the true case. When I decide
that, I say so as it comes along. In this case I saw what many have seen,
the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area, so I've said so.
And it's time fore me to add another person that saw the bullet hole
in the forehead area. The person that made up the article saying the kill
shot came from the South GK. That person stated clearly that both throat
and forehead shot were from the front.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechIt becomes an escape from difficult questions, by saying we need an
expert, you can't tell anything without one. Yet often the question can
be answered by simply looking at a photo or determining the logic of a
situation, no expert needed. For instance, I don't need an expert to tell
me there is a hole in the forehead of JFK in a photo. I know what a hole
looks like from my own experience. bd would say 'we need an expert to
look at it, or we can't tell what it is'.
It's comical that you think you can come to a better conclusion by looking
at one or two photos than highly qualified people who saw dozens of photos
and x-rays.
The number of photos they looked at does not equate to seeing proof of
something. If the medical experts were fooled by things like the HSCA's
use of a drawing instead of a photo, and they accepted that, then they
didn't do their job very well.
Where do you get the silly idea they based their findings on a drawing.
The link you posted stated quite clearly that the HSCA panel looked at
photos and x-rays with 10X magnification.
It also said it was showing a drawing in lieu of a real photo to show
the bullet hole in the BOH! Who ever heard of a Final Report using a
drawing to display what they were talking about, when there was a real
photo available? Unless of course, the photo didn't have a bullet hole in
it and the drawing did!
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechOf course, this was a situation they were
coming into where they knew what they were to find, and once they read the
AR, they were ready to see exactly what it said there. I'm sure to many
of them it was a walk in the park. An item for their resume.
So are you now accusing them of being zombies?
I'm not making accusations, I'm pointing out that for various reasons
people (including experts) can easily be lulled into thinking there aren't
any hard problems when the autopsy was already done and all the questions
were answered.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by Steve M. GalbraithThese men and women literally devote decades studying up on these issues.
It's why they are paid lots of money and why we as a nation spend billions
on education.
Can they be wrong? Of course. But just dismissing them as liars and frauds
or part of the conspiracy is not how you prove it.
You won't catch me dismissing them without reason.
Your reason is always that their opinions don't fit your theories so their
opinions must be wrong.
FALSE information. I rarely use "theories" since I'm interested in
what happened, not what someone GUESSED happened. The WCR (for instance)
depends on theories for some of its beliefs.
You can deny your beliefs are theories all you want but that is what they
are. They are also theories not based in evidence but in supposition.
And that is an opinion, which carries no weight here. Since you've
made nothing but mistakes when trying to discuss what I think and why.
What makes you think your opinions carry any weight. At least mine are
based on real evidence and the unanimous conclusions of people with far
more knowledge than you or I.
Naah! Most of your opinions are like the WCR...theories and blather.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechI've been accused
of it often,. but never did it. I also have good reason for seeing
evidence in a different light than the average LN.
That's true. We want to know the truth and you want your theories to be
true.
Post by mainframetechYour point is well taken. Experts can be wrong, especially when they
are intentionally misled. When the HSCA uses the drawing from Ida Dox as
proof of a bullet hole in the BOH, and avoids the photograph that the
drawing was made from, you've got evidence fakery, which can affect the
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057a.htm
Go to the next page from the explanation.
Or save yourself ten minutes that you'll never get back.
You have a wisecrack, but no explanation as to why the HSCA would use
phony evidence. You need to run from evidence.
They didn't use phony evidence. They used the original photos and x-rays.
The Ida Dox drawing was prepared for public presentation.
So THAT'S your excuse for why they used a drawing in place of the
photo it was copied from in a final report that was supposed to prove its
contentions. I think you don't know what you're talking about. The HSCA
couldn't be THAT stupid, could they?
Once again I have to remind you that the conclusions of the HSCA panel
were based on the photos and x-rays, not the drawing which was prepared
for public presentation. If you think otherwise, than you don't know what
you're talking about.
Well, of course I know! They used the drawing in their final report,
so why wouldn't they use it to do their determinations? After all, the
real photo didn't have a bullet hole in the BOH, so they kind of HAD to
use the drawing where they could put the bullet hole in wherever they
wanted it.
Chris