How do you reason with this?

[bigdog]

In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
wound in JFK's forehead wrote the following:

"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "

The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.

[mainframetech]

Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.

Ah, here we go. Your inability to understand the many times I've had
to go over this exact data because you can't seem to get it can be very
irritating. Especially your urge to have the forum agree with you and
make you a hero of some kind. Well, you've made yet another mistake that
I have to correct.

Here's my statement again:

"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions

Post by bigdog
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "

First, the bullet wound is indeed "not obvious" because to see it
clearly you have to ENLARGE the photo that's known as the
'stare-of-death'. It was missed by many medical panels that went through
the photos from the autopsy, proving the difficulty in seeing the wound.
However, I usually give instructions for anyone that wants to see it. In
the case in point I had left out that part, since I had said it so many
times. But bd decided to leave that part out and not mention that I give
those instructions.

Second, once a person follows my instructions to ENLARGE the photo in
question, The bullet wound can be seen easily and is obvious. But only
after the ENLARGING! So bd has taken a shot at me by leaving out my
instructions to ENLARGE, leaving the remainder which in this rare instance
suggests that I have contradicted myself.

It seems a lot of effort to go to just to take a shot at someone, but
sometime frustration at losing arguments or frequently being corrected
might drive someone to go too far with attacking another forum member.

I wish it weren't so, and will go along in my usual way, responding to
folks as they speak to me, and in the same mode.

Chris

[Bill Clarke]

In article <1c53f0da-b8b9-4b92-8962-***@googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech says...

Post by mainframetech

In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our=

=20

regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance=

=20

=20
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions=

=20

when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The=

=20

quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole=

=20

and the fleshy rim around it. "
=20
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In=20
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying th=

e=20

wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hol=

e=20

was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in=20
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves=

=20

in just two sentences.

Ah, here we go. Your inability to understand the many times I've had
to go over this exact data because you can't seem to get it can be very
irritating. Especially your urge to have the forum agree with you and
make you a hero of some kind. Well, you've made yet another mistake that
I have to correct.
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions=20

when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The=

=20

quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole=

=20

and the fleshy rim around it. "

First, the bullet wound is indeed "not obvious" because to see it
clearly you have to ENLARGE the photo that's known as the
'stare-of-death'. It was missed by many medical panels that went through
the photos from the autopsy, proving the difficulty in seeing the wound.
However, I usually give instructions for anyone that wants to see it. In
the case in point I had left out that part, since I had said it so many
times. But bd decided to leave that part out and not mention that I give
those instructions.
Second, once a person follows my instructions to ENLARGE the photo in
question, The bullet wound can be seen easily and is obvious. But only
after the ENLARGING! So bd has taken a shot at me by leaving out my
instructions to ENLARGE, leaving the remainder which in this rare instance
suggests that I have contradicted myself.
It seems a lot of effort to go to just to take a shot at someone, but
sometime frustration at losing arguments or frequently being corrected
might drive someone to go too far with attacking another forum member.
I wish it weren't so, and will go along in my usual way, responding to
folks as they speak to me, and in the same mode.
Chris

I just knew Big Dog was talking about Marsh here. I'm shocked. But
recently Marsh post a reference that proved he was wrong as hell. He shot
himself in his own foot. It is to laugh.

[mainframetech]

Post by Bill Clarke
mainframetech says...

Post by mainframetech

In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our=

=20

regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance=

=20

=20
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions=

=20

when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The=

=20

quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole=

=20

and the fleshy rim around it. "
=20
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In=20
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying th=

e=20

wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hol=

e=20

was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in=20
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves=

=20

in just two sentences.

Ah, here we go. Your inability to understand the many times I've had
to go over this exact data because you can't seem to get it can be very
irritating. Especially your urge to have the forum agree with you and
make you a hero of some kind. Well, you've made yet another mistake that
I have to correct.
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions=20

when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The=

=20

quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole=

=20

and the fleshy rim around it. "

First, the bullet wound is indeed "not obvious" because to see it
clearly you have to ENLARGE the photo that's known as the
'stare-of-death'. It was missed by many medical panels that went through
the photos from the autopsy, proving the difficulty in seeing the wound.
However, I usually give instructions for anyone that wants to see it. In
the case in point I had left out that part, since I had said it so many
times. But bd decided to leave that part out and not mention that I give
those instructions.
Second, once a person follows my instructions to ENLARGE the photo in
question, The bullet wound can be seen easily and is obvious. But only
after the ENLARGING! So bd has taken a shot at me by leaving out my
instructions to ENLARGE, leaving the remainder which in this rare instance
suggests that I have contradicted myself.
It seems a lot of effort to go to just to take a shot at someone, but
sometime frustration at losing arguments or frequently being corrected
might drive someone to go too far with attacking another forum member.
I wish it weren't so, and will go along in my usual way, responding to
folks as they speak to me, and in the same mode.
Chris

I just knew Big Dog was talking about Marsh here. I'm shocked. But
recently Marsh post a reference that proved he was wrong as hell. He shot
himself in his own foot. It is to laugh.

Actually, bd was talking about me, and I didn't appreciate it, so I
responded. I've had to correct him so often that I think it has hurt his
ego and he feels he has to somehow try to 'get' me. Which will never
happen.

Chris

[bigdog]

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.

Ah, here we go. Your inability to understand the many times I've had
to go over this exact data because you can't seem to get it can be very
irritating. Especially your urge to have the forum agree with you and
make you a hero of some kind. Well, you've made yet another mistake that
I have to correct.
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions

Post by bigdog
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "

First, the bullet wound is indeed "not obvious" because to see it
clearly you have to ENLARGE the photo that's known as the
'stare-of-death'. It was missed by many medical panels that went through
the photos from the autopsy, proving the difficulty in seeing the wound.
However, I usually give instructions for anyone that wants to see it. In
the case in point I had left out that part, since I had said it so many
times. But bd decided to leave that part out and not mention that I give
those instructions.
Second, once a person follows my instructions to ENLARGE the photo in
question, The bullet wound can be seen easily and is obvious. But only
after the ENLARGING!

So tell us what you see when you enlarge the photo that doesn't show up at
the normal size which tells you it is a bullet hole.

Post by mainframetech
So bd has taken a shot at me by leaving out my
instructions to ENLARGE, leaving the remainder which in this rare instance
suggests that I have contradicted myself.

It doesn't suggest you contradicted yourself. You did contradict yourself.

Post by mainframetech
It seems a lot of effort to go to just to take a shot at someone, but
sometime frustration at losing arguments or frequently being corrected
might drive someone to go too far with attacking another forum member.

I didn't need to take a shot at you. Yours was a self inflicted wound.

Post by mainframetech
I wish it weren't so, and will go along in my usual way, responding to
folks as they speak to me, and in the same mode.

This is what it comes down to. You NEED your imaginary bullet wound to be
both obvious and not obvious. First, you think by saying it is obvious
that no further explanation is necessary. But then you needed a reason for
the review panels to have missed it so you turn around and so it was not
obvious. To get around this dilemma you have created for yourself, you
claim the photo has to be enlarged in order to see the obvious bullet
wound. First of all, it is ludicrous to assume the review panels were
working with prints the size as one sees when the photo is accessed
online. I've seen photos of some of these photos being presented to the
HSCA and they are plenty large. In addition they are of much higher
quality than the copies that have been leaked to the public. Dr. Peter
Cummings who was granted access to the original photos has told us that.
On top of all that, I and I'm sure many others have enlarged that photo
and no bullet hole suddenly pops out. What you imagine to be a bullet hole
is nothing but a dark blob extending below the hairline. It is the same
shade as the hair and there is no margin delineating that blob from the
hair that it extends from. When you enlarge the photo, that blob remains
the same shade as the rest of the hair and no delineating margin appears.
This suggests that the blob is nothing more than a small tuft of hair
extending down below the hairline. In order to see a bullet hole there,
you need an active imagination and/or a desperate desire to believe there
is a bullet hole there.

[mainframetech]

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.

Ah, here we go. Your inability to understand the many times I've had
to go over this exact data because you can't seem to get it can be very
irritating. Especially your urge to have the forum agree with you and
make you a hero of some kind. Well, you've made yet another mistake that
I have to correct.
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions

Post by bigdog
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "

First, the bullet wound is indeed "not obvious" because to see it
clearly you have to ENLARGE the photo that's known as the
'stare-of-death'. It was missed by many medical panels that went through
the photos from the autopsy, proving the difficulty in seeing the wound.
However, I usually give instructions for anyone that wants to see it. In
the case in point I had left out that part, since I had said it so many
times. But bd decided to leave that part out and not mention that I give
those instructions.
Second, once a person follows my instructions to ENLARGE the photo in
question, The bullet wound can be seen easily and is obvious. But only
after the ENLARGING!

So tell us what you see when you enlarge the photo that doesn't show up at
the normal size which tells you it is a bullet hole.

You've gotten it wrong again! The problem is that when small the
bullet hole is easy to miss. When the photo is ENLARGED, the clear bullet
hole is easy to understand and see, for everyone but LNs who don't dare se
a bullet hole.

And to help the few who might work up the courage to look at the
bullet hole using the instructions, here is a photo used by Vincent DiMaio
as an example of this type of bullet wound. Go to the link below and look
for chapter 4 and find figure 4.16.

https://www.e-reading.club/bookreader.php/135302/Gunshot_wounds._Practical_aspects_of_firearms,_ballistics,_and_forensic_techniques.pdf

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
So bd has taken a shot at me by leaving out my
instructions to ENLARGE, leaving the remainder which in this rare instance
suggests that I have contradicted myself.

It doesn't suggest you contradicted yourself. You did contradict yourself.

No, only if you read it that way, because I had told him the full
story many, many times, so didn't bother to repeat it all over again. He
has heard the full story yet decided to not mention that he knew there
were instructions between my first and second statement that made a
difference in whether the bullet hole was obvious or not.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
It seems a lot of effort to go to just to take a shot at someone, but
sometime frustration at losing arguments or frequently being corrected
might drive someone to go too far with attacking another forum member.

I didn't need to take a shot at you. Yours was a self inflicted wound.

WRONG! You had heard my explanation many, many times and you aren't
that stupid that you forgot that there were instructions between my 2
statements that made the difference between obvious and not obvious. Now
you're pretending you didn't know anything about it, but I've told it to
you too many times for you to have forgotten. It's in your nature to be a
wise guy and insult anyone that doesn't agree with you, which you have
always done with me. So you get it back from me, and that will continue
until you change your attitude in how you deal with people that don't
agree with you.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
I wish it weren't so, and will go along in my usual way, responding to
folks as they speak to me, and in the same mode.

This is what it comes down to. You NEED your imaginary bullet wound to be
both obvious and not obvious.

So now you're gong to do a Trump and try to talk your way out of it and
try to make it look like you had every reason to fake your complaint about
me to the forum in a special thread. You'll never learn how to get along
with people.

Post by bigdog
First, you think by saying it is obvious
that no further explanation is necessary.

Give it up. There's no talking your way out of what you did. You and
I have argued that point of the bullet hole so many times that you could
give it all back to me from memory. And you know damn well that my
instructions always were to ENLARGE the photo before looking for the
wound, which would make a difference in how obvious it was. Far too many
times for you to cover up with that phony excuse. You were frustrated and
had to take a shot at me so you could feel better, and you made a special
post with a title to do it. Note, it's not a new method for you. You've
done similar things before.

Post by bigdog
But then you needed a reason for
the review panels to have missed it so you turn around and so it was not
obvious. To get around this dilemma you have created for yourself, you
claim the photo has to be enlarged in order to see the obvious bullet
wound. First of all, it is ludicrous to assume the review panels were
working with prints the size as one sees when the photo is accessed
online. I've seen photos of some of these photos being presented to the
HSCA and they are plenty large. In addition they are of much higher
quality than the copies that have been leaked to the public. Dr. Peter
Cummings who was granted access to the original photos has told us that.
On top of all that, I and I'm sure many others have enlarged that photo
and no bullet hole suddenly pops out. What you imagine to be a bullet hole
is nothing but a dark blob extending below the hairline. It is the same
shade as the hair and there is no margin delineating that blob from the
hair that it extends from. When you enlarge the photo, that blob remains
the same shade as the rest of the hair and no delineating margin appears.
This suggests that the blob is nothing more than a small tuft of hair
extending down below the hairline. In order to see a bullet hole there,
you need an active imagination and/or a desperate desire to believe there
is a bullet hole there.

All your arguments are wasted when confronted by evidence of a
person's own eyes. And making the comparison with DiMaio's example shows
it up even more clearly. You took a shot at me, after we had discussed
that point over and over, and now you again try to cover your tracks with
the old argument. I'm not responding to it this time. you have heard
everything I have had to say on the subject and you either believe my
evidence, or you don't, which is your choice. It should be easy for you,
since you're the only person in the world that says you see nothing out of
normal in the photo.

Chris

[bigdog]

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.

Ah, here we go. Your inability to understand the many times I've had
to go over this exact data because you can't seem to get it can be very
irritating. Especially your urge to have the forum agree with you and
make you a hero of some kind. Well, you've made yet another mistake that
I have to correct.
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions

Post by bigdog
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "

First, the bullet wound is indeed "not obvious" because to see it
clearly you have to ENLARGE the photo that's known as the
'stare-of-death'. It was missed by many medical panels that went through
the photos from the autopsy, proving the difficulty in seeing the wound.
However, I usually give instructions for anyone that wants to see it. In
the case in point I had left out that part, since I had said it so many
times. But bd decided to leave that part out and not mention that I give
those instructions.
Second, once a person follows my instructions to ENLARGE the photo in
question, The bullet wound can be seen easily and is obvious. But only
after the ENLARGING!

So tell us what you see when you enlarge the photo that doesn't show up at
the normal size which tells you it is a bullet hole.

You've gotten it wrong again! The problem is that when small the
bullet hole is easy to miss. When the photo is ENLARGED, the clear bullet
hole is easy to understand and see, for everyone but LNs who don't dare se
a bullet hole.

You didn't answer the question. I asked you what you see when you enlarge
the photo that you can't see at the normal size. Is it a different shade
than the hair it extends below? Do you see a margin that can't be seen at
the normal size? Would you like to take another crack at it?

Post by mainframetech
And to help the few who might work up the courage to look at the
bullet hole using the instructions, here is a photo used by Vincent DiMaio
as an example of this type of bullet wound. Go to the link below and look
for chapter 4 and find figure 4.16.
https://www.e-reading.club/bookreader.php/135302/Gunshot_wounds._Practical_aspects_of_firearms,_ballistics,_and_forensic_techniques.pdf

Yup. Those are bullet holes. Clearly defined margins between the hole and
the surrounding skin, something completely lacking in the SOD photo. The
bullet holes in those photos are very dark with a sharp discernible margin
between the hole and the lighter colored abrasion collar. The surrounding
skin is lighter still. None of that appears in an enlarged SOD photo.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
So bd has taken a shot at me by leaving out my
instructions to ENLARGE, leaving the remainder which in this rare instance
suggests that I have contradicted myself.

It doesn't suggest you contradicted yourself. You did contradict yourself.

No, only if you read it that way, because I had told him the full
story many, many times, so didn't bother to repeat it all over again.

In consecutive sentences you said the bullet hole was both obvious and not
obvious. Most people would call that a contradiction.

Post by mainframetech
He has heard the full story yet decided to not mention that he knew there
were instructions between my first and second statement that made a
difference in whether the bullet hole was obvious or not.

There wee no instructions between your contradicting statements.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
It seems a lot of effort to go to just to take a shot at someone, but
sometime frustration at losing arguments or frequently being corrected
might drive someone to go too far with attacking another forum member.

I didn't need to take a shot at you. Yours was a self inflicted wound.

WRONG! You had heard my explanation many, many times and you aren't
that stupid that you forgot that there were instructions between my 2
statements that made the difference between obvious and not obvious.

You're just tap dancing now, trying to pretend you didn't just step in it.

Post by mainframetech
Now you're pretending you didn't know anything about it, but I've told it to
you too many times for you to have forgotten. It's in your nature to be a
wise guy and insult anyone that doesn't agree with you, which you have
always done with me. So you get it back from me, and that will continue
until you change your attitude in how you deal with people that don't
agree with you.

The silliest thing of all is that you think something that doesn't show in
the normal sized photo suddenly becomes obvious if you enlarge the photo.
Nothing new appears when the photo is enlarged. It's just a larger
spot.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
I wish it weren't so, and will go along in my usual way, responding to
folks as they speak to me, and in the same mode.

This is what it comes down to. You NEED your imaginary bullet wound to be
both obvious and not obvious.

So now you're gong to do a Trump and try to talk your way out of it and
try to make it look like you had every reason to fake your complaint about
me to the forum in a special thread. You'll never learn how to get along
with people.

If getting along with people means agreeing with the silly things they
say, I'd rather not get along.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog
First, you think by saying it is obvious
that no further explanation is necessary.

Give it up. There's no talking your way out of what you did.

I'm not the one who completely contradicted myself in the space of two
sentences. That was you.

Post by mainframetech
You and
I have argued that point of the bullet hole so many times that you could
give it all back to me from memory. And you know damn well that my
instructions always were to ENLARGE the photo before looking for the
wound, which would make a difference in how obvious it was.

I enlarged the photo. Nothing became obvious that wasn't seen before the
enlargement.

Post by mainframetech
Far too many
times for you to cover up with that phony excuse. You were frustrated and
had to take a shot at me so you could feel better, and you made a special
post with a title to do it. Note, it's not a new method for you. You've
done similar things before.

Yes, I have pointed out your fallacies before.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog
But then you needed a reason for
the review panels to have missed it so you turn around and so it was not
obvious. To get around this dilemma you have created for yourself, you
claim the photo has to be enlarged in order to see the obvious bullet
wound. First of all, it is ludicrous to assume the review panels were
working with prints the size as one sees when the photo is accessed
online. I've seen photos of some of these photos being presented to the
HSCA and they are plenty large. In addition they are of much higher
quality than the copies that have been leaked to the public. Dr. Peter
Cummings who was granted access to the original photos has told us that.
On top of all that, I and I'm sure many others have enlarged that photo
and no bullet hole suddenly pops out. What you imagine to be a bullet hole
is nothing but a dark blob extending below the hairline. It is the same
shade as the hair and there is no margin delineating that blob from the
hair that it extends from. When you enlarge the photo, that blob remains
the same shade as the rest of the hair and no delineating margin appears.
This suggests that the blob is nothing more than a small tuft of hair
extending down below the hairline. In order to see a bullet hole there,
you need an active imagination and/or a desperate desire to believe there
is a bullet hole there.

All your arguments are wasted when confronted by evidence of a
person's own eyes.

They are wasted on you.

Post by mainframetech
And making the comparison with DiMaio's example shows
it up even more clearly.

There is nothing in the SOD photo that looks anything like the photos of
bullet holes in DiMaio's book. Not even close.

Post by mainframetech
You took a shot at me, after we had discussed
that point over and over, and now you again try to cover your tracks with
the old argument. I'm not responding to it this time. you have heard
everything I have had to say on the subject and you either believe my
evidence, or you don't, which is your choice. It should be easy for you,
since you're the only person in the world that says you see nothing out of
normal in the photo.

Cries of desperation.

[mainframetech]

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.

Ah, here we go. Your inability to understand the many times I've had
to go over this exact data because you can't seem to get it can be very
irritating. Especially your urge to have the forum agree with you and
make you a hero of some kind. Well, you've made yet another mistake that
I have to correct.
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions

Post by bigdog
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "

First, the bullet wound is indeed "not obvious" because to see it
clearly you have to ENLARGE the photo that's known as the
'stare-of-death'. It was missed by many medical panels that went through
the photos from the autopsy, proving the difficulty in seeing the wound.
However, I usually give instructions for anyone that wants to see it. In
the case in point I had left out that part, since I had said it so many
times. But bd decided to leave that part out and not mention that I give
those instructions.
Second, once a person follows my instructions to ENLARGE the photo in
question, The bullet wound can be seen easily and is obvious. But only
after the ENLARGING!

So tell us what you see when you enlarge the photo that doesn't show up at
the normal size which tells you it is a bullet hole.

You've gotten it wrong again! The problem is that when small the
bullet hole is easy to miss. When the photo is ENLARGED, the clear bullet
hole is easy to understand and see, for everyone but LNs who don't dare se
a bullet hole.

You didn't answer the question. I asked you what you see when you enlarge
the photo that you can't see at the normal size. Is it a different shade
than the hair it extends below? Do you see a margin that can't be seen at
the normal size? Would you like to take another crack at it?

I understand your urge to find out about the bullet hole that you
can't see. So I'll help you. Once you see the ENLARGED photo and locate
the bullet hole, it is easier to see when the photo is at normal size, but
normally it's not OBVIOUS unless you give extreme focus on the right area.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
And to help the few who might work up the courage to look at the
bullet hole using the instructions, here is a photo used by Vincent DiMaio
as an example of this type of bullet wound. Go to the link below and look
for chapter 4 and find figure 4.16.
https://www.e-reading.club/bookreader.php/135302/Gunshot_wounds._Practical_aspects_of_firearms,_ballistics,_and_forensic_techniques.pdf

Yup. Those are bullet holes. Clearly defined margins between the hole and
the surrounding skin, something completely lacking in the SOD photo. The
bullet holes in those photos are very dark with a sharp discernible margin
between the hole and the lighter colored abrasion collar. The surrounding
skin is lighter still. None of that appears in an enlarged SOD photo.

WRONG! Your failing sight has to be recognized by you and you need to
see an eye doctor. The bullet hole and its fleshy rim (the abrasion ring)
is clearly seen when the photo is ENLARGED.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
So bd has taken a shot at me by leaving out my
instructions to ENLARGE, leaving the remainder which in this rare instance
suggests that I have contradicted myself.

It doesn't suggest you contradicted yourself. You did contradict yourself.

Naah.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
No, only if you read it that way, because I had told him the full
story many, many times, so didn't bother to repeat it all over again.

In consecutive sentences you said the bullet hole was both obvious and not
obvious. Most people would call that a contradiction.

Most people would call it that IF you had just pointed it out, even
though you knew it was your leaving out the important part that made it
look that way. Anyone can check back and see my comments about this same
thing which I've made many times, and they will see that I mentioned the
ENLARGEMENT necessity. You tried a phony gimmick to try and discredit me,
and it flopped and you know it. Now your trying to run from your
embarrassment at being caught trying it. You were unable to win an
argument in normal fashion so you had to resort to trickery and that
failed too.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
You have heard the full story yet decided to not mention that you knew there
were instructions between my first and second statement that made a
difference in whether the bullet hole was obvious or not.

There wee no instructions between your contradicting statements.

You're still trying to run away from your failure to discredit me.
You KNEW what was missing from my statement and decided to use it to
pretend that I made a verbal mistake. Well, you're caught!

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
It seems a lot of effort to go to just to take a shot at someone, but
sometime frustration at losing arguments or frequently being corrected
might drive someone to go too far with attacking another forum member.

I didn't need to take a shot at you. Yours was a self inflicted wound.

WRONG! You had heard my explanation many, many times and you aren't
that stupid that you forgot that there were instructions between my 2
statements that made the difference between obvious and not obvious.

You're just tap dancing now, trying to pretend you didn't just step in it.

It's OBVIOUS that we're not going to get anywhere in this thread.
You've tried to pretend that I made a mistake and lost another attempt,
and I'm wasting my time repeating the same thing over and over to you.
I'm outa here.

Chris

[bigdog]

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.

Ah, here we go. Your inability to understand the many times I've had
to go over this exact data because you can't seem to get it can be very
irritating. Especially your urge to have the forum agree with you and
make you a hero of some kind. Well, you've made yet another mistake that
I have to correct.
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions

Post by bigdog
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "

First, the bullet wound is indeed "not obvious" because to see it
clearly you have to ENLARGE the photo that's known as the
'stare-of-death'. It was missed by many medical panels that went through
the photos from the autopsy, proving the difficulty in seeing the wound.
However, I usually give instructions for anyone that wants to see it. In
the case in point I had left out that part, since I had said it so many
times. But bd decided to leave that part out and not mention that I give
those instructions.
Second, once a person follows my instructions to ENLARGE the photo in
question, The bullet wound can be seen easily and is obvious. But only
after the ENLARGING!

So tell us what you see when you enlarge the photo that doesn't show up at
the normal size which tells you it is a bullet hole.

You've gotten it wrong again! The problem is that when small the
bullet hole is easy to miss. When the photo is ENLARGED, the clear bullet
hole is easy to understand and see, for everyone but LNs who don't dare se
a bullet hole.

You didn't answer the question. I asked you what you see when you enlarge
the photo that you can't see at the normal size. Is it a different shade
than the hair it extends below? Do you see a margin that can't be seen at
the normal size? Would you like to take another crack at it?

I understand your urge to find out about the bullet hole that you
can't see.

As can few others.

Post by mainframetech
So I'll help you. Once you see the ENLARGED photo and locate
the bullet hole, it is easier to see when the photo is at normal size, but
normally it's not OBVIOUS unless you give extreme focus on the right area.

So you're telling us it's not obvious unless it's obvious.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
And to help the few who might work up the courage to look at the
bullet hole using the instructions, here is a photo used by Vincent DiMaio
as an example of this type of bullet wound. Go to the link below and look
for chapter 4 and find figure 4.16.
https://www.e-reading.club/bookreader.php/135302/Gunshot_wounds._Practical_aspects_of_firearms,_ballistics,_and_forensic_techniques.pdf

Yup. Those are bullet holes. Clearly defined margins between the hole and
the surrounding skin, something completely lacking in the SOD photo. The
bullet holes in those photos are very dark with a sharp discernible margin
between the hole and the lighter colored abrasion collar. The surrounding
skin is lighter still. None of that appears in an enlarged SOD photo.

WRONG! Your failing sight has to be recognized by you and you need to
see an eye doctor. The bullet hole and its fleshy rim (the abrasion ring)
is clearly seen when the photo is ENLARGED.

Only by people who desperately want to believe there is a bullet hole
there. On this forum that's limited to you, Marsh, and Amy.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
So bd has taken a shot at me by leaving out my
instructions to ENLARGE, leaving the remainder which in this rare instance
suggests that I have contradicted myself.

It doesn't suggest you contradicted yourself. You did contradict yourself.

Naah.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
No, only if you read it that way, because I had told him the full
story many, many times, so didn't bother to repeat it all over again.

In consecutive sentences you said the bullet hole was both obvious and not
obvious. Most people would call that a contradiction.

Most people would call it that IF you had just pointed it out,

That's all I did. Unlike your practice of paraphrasing what people say or
quoting words or phrases out of context, I quoted your entire paragraph. I
cut and pasted it to make sure I got it exactly as you wrote it. I
misrepresented nothing.

Post by mainframetech
even
though you knew it was your leaving out the important part that made it
look that way.

I didn't leave anything out. You did. I just quoted you. Sorry if you
think that is unfair.

Post by mainframetech
Anyone can check back and see my comments about this same
thing which I've made many times, and they will see that I mentioned the
ENLARGEMENT necessity. You tried a phony gimmick to try and discredit me,
and it flopped and you know it.

You discredited yourself and you succeeded.

Post by mainframetech
Now your trying to run from your
embarrassment at being caught trying it. You were unable to win an
argument in normal fashion so you had to resort to trickery and that
failed too.

You are never funnier then when you are trying to tap dance your way
around one of your screw ups.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
You have heard the full story yet decided to not mention that you knew there
were instructions between my first and second statement that made a
difference in whether the bullet hole was obvious or not.

There wee no instructions between your contradicting statements.

You're still trying to run away from your failure to discredit me.
You KNEW what was missing from my statement

A shame you didn't know what was missing when you made the statement.

Post by mainframetech
and decided to use it to
pretend that I made a verbal mistake. Well, you're caught!

I didn't have to pretend anything.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
It seems a lot of effort to go to just to take a shot at someone, but
sometime frustration at losing arguments or frequently being corrected
might drive someone to go too far with attacking another forum member.

I didn't need to take a shot at you. Yours was a self inflicted wound.

WRONG! You had heard my explanation many, many times and you aren't
that stupid that you forgot that there were instructions between my 2
statements that made the difference between obvious and not obvious.

You're just tap dancing now, trying to pretend you didn't just step in it.

It's OBVIOUS that we're not going to get anywhere in this thread.
You've tried to pretend that I made a mistake and lost another attempt,
and I'm wasting my time repeating the same thing over and over to you.
I'm outa here.

It would have been a lot easier for you if you had just fessed up to your
blunder in the first place.

[mainframetech]

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.

Ah, here we go. Your inability to understand the many times I've had
to go over this exact data because you can't seem to get it can be very
irritating. Especially your urge to have the forum agree with you and
make you a hero of some kind. Well, you've made yet another mistake that
I have to correct.
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions

Post by bigdog
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "

First, the bullet wound is indeed "not obvious" because to see it
clearly you have to ENLARGE the photo that's known as the
'stare-of-death'. It was missed by many medical panels that went through
the photos from the autopsy, proving the difficulty in seeing the wound.
However, I usually give instructions for anyone that wants to see it. In
the case in point I had left out that part, since I had said it so many
times. But bd decided to leave that part out and not mention that I give
those instructions.
Second, once a person follows my instructions to ENLARGE the photo in
question, The bullet wound can be seen easily and is obvious. But only
after the ENLARGING!

So tell us what you see when you enlarge the photo that doesn't show up at
the normal size which tells you it is a bullet hole.

You've gotten it wrong again! The problem is that when small the
bullet hole is easy to miss. When the photo is ENLARGED, the clear bullet
hole is easy to understand and see, for everyone but LNs who don't dare se
a bullet hole.

You didn't answer the question. I asked you what you see when you enlarge
the photo that you can't see at the normal size. Is it a different shade
than the hair it extends below? Do you see a margin that can't be seen at
the normal size? Would you like to take another crack at it?

I understand your urge to find out about the bullet hole that you
can't see.

As can few others.

Post by mainframetech
So I'll help you. Once you see the ENLARGED photo and locate
the bullet hole, it is easier to see when the photo is at normal size, but
normally it's not OBVIOUS unless you give extreme focus on the right area.

So you're telling us it's not obvious unless it's obvious.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
And to help the few who might work up the courage to look at the
bullet hole using the instructions, here is a photo used by Vincent DiMaio
as an example of this type of bullet wound. Go to the link below and look
for chapter 4 and find figure 4.16.
https://www.e-reading.club/bookreader.php/135302/Gunshot_wounds._Practical_aspects_of_firearms,_ballistics,_and_forensic_techniques.pdf

Yup. Those are bullet holes. Clearly defined margins between the hole and
the surrounding skin, something completely lacking in the SOD photo. The
bullet holes in those photos are very dark with a sharp discernible margin
between the hole and the lighter colored abrasion collar. The surrounding
skin is lighter still. None of that appears in an enlarged SOD photo.

WRONG! Your failing sight has to be recognized by you and you need to
see an eye doctor. The bullet hole and its fleshy rim (the abrasion ring)
is clearly seen when the photo is ENLARGED.

Only by people who desperately want to believe there is a bullet hole
there. On this forum that's limited to you, Marsh, and Amy.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
So bd has taken a shot at me by leaving out my
instructions to ENLARGE, leaving the remainder which in this rare instance
suggests that I have contradicted myself.

It doesn't suggest you contradicted yourself. You did contradict yourself.

Naah.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
No, only if you read it that way, because I had told him the full
story many, many times, so didn't bother to repeat it all over again.

In consecutive sentences you said the bullet hole was both obvious and not
obvious. Most people would call that a contradiction.

Most people would call it that IF you had just pointed it out,

That's all I did. Unlike your practice of paraphrasing what people say or
quoting words or phrases out of context, I quoted your entire paragraph. I
cut and pasted it to make sure I got it exactly as you wrote it. I
misrepresented nothing.

Post by mainframetech
even
though you knew it was your leaving out the important part that made it
look that way.

I didn't leave anything out. You did. I just quoted you. Sorry if you
think that is unfair.

Post by mainframetech
Anyone can check back and see my comments about this same
thing which I've made many times, and they will see that I mentioned the
ENLARGEMENT necessity. You tried a phony gimmick to try and discredit me,
and it flopped and you know it.

You discredited yourself and you succeeded.

Post by mainframetech
Now your trying to run from your
embarrassment at being caught trying it. You were unable to win an
argument in normal fashion so you had to resort to trickery and that
failed too.

You are never funnier then when you are trying to tap dance your way
around one of your screw ups.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
You have heard the full story yet decided to not mention that you knew there
were instructions between my first and second statement that made a
difference in whether the bullet hole was obvious or not.

There wee no instructions between your contradicting statements.

You're still trying to run away from your failure to discredit me.
You KNEW what was missing from my statement

A shame you didn't know what was missing when you made the statement.

Post by mainframetech
and decided to use it to
pretend that I made a verbal mistake. Well, you're caught!

I didn't have to pretend anything.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
It seems a lot of effort to go to just to take a shot at someone, but
sometime frustration at losing arguments or frequently being corrected
might drive someone to go too far with attacking another forum member.

I didn't need to take a shot at you. Yours was a self inflicted wound.

WRONG! You had heard my explanation many, many times and you aren't
that stupid that you forgot that there were instructions between my 2
statements that made the difference between obvious and not obvious.

You're just tap dancing now, trying to pretend you didn't just step in it.

It's OBVIOUS that we're not going to get anywhere in this thread.
You've tried to pretend that I made a mistake and lost another attempt,
and I'm wasting my time repeating the same thing over and over to you.
I'm outa here.

It would have been a lot easier for you if you had just fessed up to your
blunder in the first place.

I didn't tell you that. You must be talking t yourself again.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.

Ah, here we go. Your inability to understand the many times I've had
to go over this exact data because you can't seem to get it can be very
irritating. Especially your urge to have the forum agree with you and
make you a hero of some kind. Well, you've made yet another mistake that
I have to correct.
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions

Post by bigdog
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "

First, the bullet wound is indeed "not obvious" because to see it
clearly you have to ENLARGE the photo that's known as the
'stare-of-death'. It was missed by many medical panels that went through
the photos from the autopsy, proving the difficulty in seeing the wound.
However, I usually give instructions for anyone that wants to see it. In
the case in point I had left out that part, since I had said it so many
times. But bd decided to leave that part out and not mention that I give
those instructions.
Second, once a person follows my instructions to ENLARGE the photo in
question, The bullet wound can be seen easily and is obvious. But only
after the ENLARGING!

So tell us what you see when you enlarge the photo that doesn't show up at
the normal size which tells you it is a bullet hole.

Post by mainframetech
So bd has taken a shot at me by leaving out my
instructions to ENLARGE, leaving the remainder which in this rare instance
suggests that I have contradicted myself.

It doesn't suggest you contradicted yourself. You did contradict yourself.

Post by mainframetech
It seems a lot of effort to go to just to take a shot at someone, but
sometime frustration at losing arguments or frequently being corrected
might drive someone to go too far with attacking another forum member.

I didn't need to take a shot at you. Yours was a self inflicted wound.

Post by mainframetech
I wish it weren't so, and will go along in my usual way, responding to
folks as they speak to me, and in the same mode.

This is what it comes down to. You NEED your imaginary bullet wound to be
both obvious and not obvious. First, you think by saying it is obvious
that no further explanation is necessary. But then you needed a reason for
the review panels to have missed it so you turn around and so it was not

They didn't see the bullet hole on the back until they turned him over.
Can YOU see it on the Zapruder film?

Post by bigdog
obvious. To get around this dilemma you have created for yourself, you
claim the photo has to be enlarged in order to see the obvious bullet
wound. First of all, it is ludicrous to assume the review panels were
working with prints the size as one sees when the photo is accessed
online. I've seen photos of some of these photos being presented to the
HSCA and they are plenty large. In addition they are of much higher
quality than the copies that have been leaked to the public. Dr. Peter
Cummings who was granted access to the original photos has told us that.
On top of all that, I and I'm sure many others have enlarged that photo
and no bullet hole suddenly pops out. What you imagine to be a bullet hole
is nothing but a dark blob extending below the hairline. It is the same
shade as the hair and there is no margin delineating that blob from the
hair that it extends from. When you enlarge the photo, that blob remains
the same shade as the rest of the hair and no delineating margin appears.
This suggests that the blob is nothing more than a small tuft of hair
extending down below the hairline. In order to see a bullet hole there,
you need an active imagination and/or a desperate desire to believe there
is a bullet hole there.

[Spence]

Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.

He also believes a missile hit the Pentagon on 9/11 too. Go figure.

[mainframetech]

Post by Spence

Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.

He also believes a missile hit the Pentagon on 9/11 too. Go figure.

Possibly. And you've been unable to prove otherwise.

Chris

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.

We can add to this his claim that Humes, Boswell et al. altered the wounds
on JFK during pre-autopsy surgery but - for some reason - left this
alleged bullet entrance hole in the forehead. They didn't alter that.

Even though the purpose was to cover up shots from the front.

Even more remarkably is that during the autopsy Humes mentions the
"secret" surgery that was performed - BY HIM - to everyone there.

Why would he do that?

I guess. Who knows what the heck is being proposed?

[Jason Burke]

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.

We can add to this his claim that Humes, Boswell et al. altered the wounds
on JFK during pre-autopsy surgery but - for some reason - left this
alleged bullet entrance hole in the forehead. They didn't alter that.
Even though the purpose was to cover up shots from the front.
Even more remarkably is that during the autopsy Humes mentions the
"secret" surgery that was performed - BY HIM - to everyone there.
Why would he do that?
I guess. Who knows what the heck is being proposed?

Too much LDS in the sixties is my guess.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by Jason Burke

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now.  The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.

We can add to this his claim that Humes, Boswell et al. altered the wounds
on JFK during pre-autopsy surgery but - for some reason - left this
alleged bullet entrance hole in the forehead. They didn't alter that.
Even though the purpose was to cover up shots from the front.
Even more remarkably is that during the autopsy Humes mentions the
"secret" surgery that was performed - BY HIM - to everyone there.
Why would he do that?
I guess. Who knows what the heck is being proposed?

Too much LDS in the sixties is my guess.

Looks like YOU've had too much LSD.
Was that part of the CIA project?

[mainframetech]

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.

We can add to this his claim that Humes, Boswell et al. altered the wounds
on JFK during pre-autopsy surgery but - for some reason - left this
alleged bullet entrance hole in the forehead. They didn't alter that.
Even though the purpose was to cover up shots from the front.
Even more remarkably is that during the autopsy Humes mentions the
"secret" surgery that was performed - BY HIM - to everyone there.
Why would he do that?
I guess. Who knows what the heck is being proposed?

Humes was trying to laugh off the obvious surgery done by himself and
Boswell. It was obvious because he joked "The brain fell out into my
hands". It did that because all the things that had to be cut were
already cut. The spinal cord, the optic nerves and multiple arteries had
all been cut during the clandestine surgery to search for and remove
bullets and alter the body to look more like it was hit from above and
behind.

As to leaving the bullet hole showing in the 'stare-of-death' photo, it
was simply missed. It had to be ENLARGED to see it clearly, and it wasn't
obvious otherwise. For the prosectors, they had orders anyway to make it
look like a shot from above and behind was the cause of death, so they did
not even mention that wound in the AR. A serious breach of procedure. 2
of the autopsy team had seen the bullet wound in the forehead, and thought
it was a bullet wound, but because of their orders, they left it out of
the Autopsy Report (AR).

If the bullet wound had been in the AR, it would have been obvious to
many of the medical panels that reviewed the AR, that there was a shot
from the front, and they would have realized the blowout at the BOH was
the exit for that entry.

Chris

[bigdog]

Post by mainframetech

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.

We can add to this his claim that Humes, Boswell et al. altered the wounds
on JFK during pre-autopsy surgery but - for some reason - left this
alleged bullet entrance hole in the forehead. They didn't alter that.
Even though the purpose was to cover up shots from the front.
Even more remarkably is that during the autopsy Humes mentions the
"secret" surgery that was performed - BY HIM - to everyone there.
Why would he do that?
I guess. Who knows what the heck is being proposed?

Humes was trying to laugh off the obvious surgery done by himself and
Boswell. It was obvious because he joked "The brain fell out into my
hands".

Why do you ALWAYS use the term obvious when you are claiming something for
which there is no evidence.

Post by mainframetech
It did that because all the things that had to be cut were
already cut. The spinal cord, the optic nerves and multiple arteries had
all been cut during the clandestine surgery to search for and remove
bullets and alter the body to look more like it was hit from above and
behind.
As to leaving the bullet hole showing in the 'stare-of-death' photo, it
was simply missed. It had to be ENLARGED to see it clearly, and it wasn't
obvious otherwise.

They weren't looking at a photo. They were looking at the body. How do you
enlarge a body. Did you even think about this before you typed it? I know.
Stupid question.

Post by mainframetech
For the prosectors, they had orders anyway to make it
look like a shot from above and behind was the cause of death, so they did
not even mention that wound in the AR.

Another in your long list of unsupportable assumptions.

Post by mainframetech
A serious breach of procedure. 2
of the autopsy team had seen the bullet wound in the forehead, and thought
it was a bullet wound, but because of their orders, they left it out of
the Autopsy Report (AR).

The one member of the team who you actually quoted stated the bullet hole
was in the temporal bone. Finck along with the other two pathologists
signed a report that said the hole was in the parietal bone which is above
and adjacent to the temporal bone. Neither of those bones is part of the
forehead so neither of these two people support your bogus claim.

Post by mainframetech
If the bullet wound had been in the AR, it would have been obvious to
many of the medical panels that reviewed the AR, that there was a shot
from the front, and they would have realized the blowout at the BOH was
the exit for that entry.

The bullet hole was mentioned in the AR and it was placed in the parietal
bone. Sorry if that doesn't square with your fantasy.

[mainframetech]

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.

We can add to this his claim that Humes, Boswell et al. altered the wounds
on JFK during pre-autopsy surgery but - for some reason - left this
alleged bullet entrance hole in the forehead. They didn't alter that.
Even though the purpose was to cover up shots from the front.
Even more remarkably is that during the autopsy Humes mentions the
"secret" surgery that was performed - BY HIM - to everyone there.
Why would he do that?
I guess. Who knows what the heck is being proposed?

Humes was trying to laugh off the obvious surgery done by himself and
Boswell. It was obvious because he joked "The brain fell out into my
hands".

Why do you ALWAYS use the term obvious when you are claiming something for
which there is no evidence.

Why do you always complain about my use of the word 'obvious'? Is it
that you don't understand the meaning? Here's the Google definition:

easily perceived or understood; clear, self-evident, or apparent.
"unemployment has been the most obvious cost of the recession"



Is it that none of that applies to you?

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
It did that because all the things that had to be cut were
already cut. The spinal cord, the optic nerves and multiple arteries had
all been cut during the clandestine surgery to search for and remove
bullets and alter the body to look more like it was hit from above and
behind.
As to leaving the bullet hole showing in the 'stare-of-death' photo, it
was simply missed. It had to be ENLARGED to see it clearly, and it wasn't
obvious otherwise.

They weren't looking at a photo. They were looking at the body. How do you
enlarge a body. Did you even think about this before you typed it? I know.
Stupid question.

Yep. You decided that I meant the pathologists, while I meant the
medical panels. However, 2 of the autopsy team saw the bullet hole that
you couldn't see, and they commented on it and thought it might be a
bullet hole. So you've missed again.

From an interview of James Jenkins:

"JAMES JENKINS RECALLS EVIDENCE OF A BULLET HOLE IN THE RIGHT TEMPORAL
AREA, IMMEDIATELY FORWARD OF, AND JUST ABOVE, THE RIGHT EAR: Jenkins
recalled the large posterior hole in JFK’s head, but also recalled
a small (approximately 5 mm in diameter) hole in the right temporal bone,
just forward of and just above the right ear. He saw this quite early in
the autopsy, and recalls that Dr. Finck saw this and commented on it. The
circumference was gray, which suggested to Jenkins the passage of a
bullet. He said that even Dr. Finck speculated that a bullet might have
caused this hole. However, none of the pathologists ever returned to this
site, nor did they discuss it any further."

From: https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
For the prosectors, they had orders anyway to make it
look like a shot from above and behind was the cause of death, so they did
not even mention that wound in the AR.

Another in your long list of unsupportable assumptions.

Oh? And how do you explain the sighting of the bullet wound by Finck
and Humes' failure to add it to the wound list in the AR?

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
A serious breach of procedure. 2
of the autopsy team had seen the bullet wound in the forehead, and thought
it was a bullet wound, but because of their orders, they left it out of
the Autopsy Report (AR).

The one member of the team who you actually quoted stated the bullet hole
was in the temporal bone. Finck along with the other two pathologists
signed a report that said the hole was in the parietal bone which is above
and adjacent to the temporal bone. Neither of those bones is part of the
forehead so neither of these two people support your bogus claim.

WRONG! You're speaking of the phony bullet hole in the BOH, which
I've already proved wasn't there according to the 'leaked' photos.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
If the bullet wound had been in the AR, it would have been obvious to
many of the medical panels that reviewed the AR, that there was a shot
from the front, and they would have realized the blowout at the BOH was
the exit for that entry.

The bullet hole was mentioned in the AR and it was placed in the parietal
bone. Sorry if that doesn't square with your fantasy.

WRONG! You might want to check under "Missile Wounds" in the AR,
because there are only 2 wounds listed there. The major 'large hole' in
the BOH going now around to the right, and the small entry in the upper
back. No other missile wounds are listed under that subheading. It
speaks later of a bullet entering near the EOP, which is proved to be
wrong from the photo of the BOH. But nowhere is there any mention of the
5mm bullet hole in the forehead/temple area. And the EOP is in the
occipital region.

Chris

[bigdog]

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.

We can add to this his claim that Humes, Boswell et al. altered the wounds
on JFK during pre-autopsy surgery but - for some reason - left this
alleged bullet entrance hole in the forehead. They didn't alter that.
Even though the purpose was to cover up shots from the front.
Even more remarkably is that during the autopsy Humes mentions the
"secret" surgery that was performed - BY HIM - to everyone there.
Why would he do that?
I guess. Who knows what the heck is being proposed?

Humes was trying to laugh off the obvious surgery done by himself and
Boswell. It was obvious because he joked "The brain fell out into my
hands".

Why do you ALWAYS use the term obvious when you are claiming something for
which there is no evidence.

Why do you always complain about my use of the word 'obvious'? Is it

In your previous post in this thread, you said you were out of here. That
didn't last long.

I don't complain about your use of the word. I simply point out you use
the word whenever you are asserting something for which you have no
supporting evidence. I think it's hysterical when you do that.

Post by mainframetech
easily perceived or understood; clear, self-evident, or apparent.
"unemployment has been the most obvious cost of the recession"

I know what the word obvious means and I know you frequently misuse it to
try to give your arguments more credibility. It never works.

Post by mainframetech
Is it that none of that applies to you?

It doesn't apply to any of your baseless claims.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
It did that because all the things that had to be cut were
already cut. The spinal cord, the optic nerves and multiple arteries had
all been cut during the clandestine surgery to search for and remove
bullets and alter the body to look more like it was hit from above and
behind.
As to leaving the bullet hole showing in the 'stare-of-death' photo, it
was simply missed. It had to be ENLARGED to see it clearly, and it wasn't
obvious otherwise.

They weren't looking at a photo. They were looking at the body. How do you
enlarge a body. Did you even think about this before you typed it? I know.
Stupid question.

Yep. You decided that I meant the pathologists,

That is who were were discussing. You were talking about them doing all
that clandestine surgery to hide the nature of the wounds and then claimed
they missed the bullet hole.

Post by mainframetech
while I meant the
medical panels. However, 2 of the autopsy team saw the bullet hole that
you couldn't see, and they commented on it and thought it might be a
bullet hole. So you've missed again.

So I'm supposed to guess about what you mean instead going by what you
write.

Post by mainframetech
"JAMES JENKINS RECALLS EVIDENCE OF A BULLET HOLE IN THE RIGHT TEMPORAL
AREA,

That's the area around the ear. Quite a ways from the forehead. Picasso
might have pained people with ears in the foreheads but I don't think you
will find a photo of someone like that.
That's not describing a location in the forehead. It was above and forward
of the ear but still in the temporal bone according to Jenkins.

Post by mainframetech
Jenkins
recalled the large posterior hole in JFK’s head, but also recalled
a small (approximately 5 mm in diameter) hole in the right temporal bone,
just forward of and just above the right ear. He saw this quite early in
the autopsy, and recalls that Dr. Finck saw this and commented on it. The
circumference was gray, which suggested to Jenkins the passage of a
bullet. He said that even Dr. Finck speculated that a bullet might have
caused this hole. However, none of the pathologists ever returned to this
site, nor did they discuss it any further."
From: https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html

You are shooting yourself in the foot, AGAIN. Jenkins description isn't
remotely near the forehead.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
For the prosectors, they had orders anyway to make it
look like a shot from above and behind was the cause of death, so they did
not even mention that wound in the AR.

Another in your long list of unsupportable assumptions.

Oh? And how do you explain the sighting of the bullet wound by Finck
and Humes' failure to add it to the wound list in the AR?

Go back and reread the AR. The mentioned the bullet hole in the parietal
bone. IOW, they got it in the correct place and you didn't.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
A serious breach of procedure. 2
of the autopsy team had seen the bullet wound in the forehead, and thought
it was a bullet wound, but because of their orders, they left it out of
the Autopsy Report (AR).

The one member of the team who you actually quoted stated the bullet hole
was in the temporal bone. Finck along with the other two pathologists
signed a report that said the hole was in the parietal bone which is above
and adjacent to the temporal bone. Neither of those bones is part of the
forehead so neither of these two people support your bogus claim.

WRONG! You're speaking of the phony bullet hole in the BOH, which
I've already proved wasn't there according to the 'leaked' photos.

No, the AR specifically mentions a bullet hole in the parietal bone.
That's the one you keep wanting to ignore because you want to believe it
was actually in the forehead.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
If the bullet wound had been in the AR, it would have been obvious to
many of the medical panels that reviewed the AR, that there was a shot
from the front, and they would have realized the blowout at the BOH was
the exit for that entry.

The bullet hole was mentioned in the AR and it was placed in the parietal
bone. Sorry if that doesn't square with your fantasy.

WRONG! You might want to check under "Missile Wounds" in the AR,
because there are only 2 wounds listed there. The major 'large hole' in
the BOH going now around to the right, and the small entry in the upper
back. No other missile wounds are listed under that subheading. It
speaks later of a bullet entering near the EOP, which is proved to be
wrong from the photo of the BOH. But nowhere is there any mention of the
5mm bullet hole in the forehead/temple area. And the EOP is in the
occipital region.

Try reading the WHOLE report. If you go to the Summary section you will
find the following passage:

"The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of the
external occipital protuberance. A portion of the projectile traversed the
cranial cavity in a posterior-anterior direction (see lateral skull
roentgenograms) depositing minute particles along its path. A portion of
the projectile made its exit through the parietal bone on the right
carrying with it portions of cerebrum, skull and scalp. The two wounds of
the skull combined with the force of the missile produced extensive
fragmentation of the skull, laceration of the superior saggital sinus, and
of the right cerebral hemisphere".

Pretty much shoots down what you just claimed.

[Bud]

Post by mainframetech

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.

We can add to this his claim that Humes, Boswell et al. altered the wounds
on JFK during pre-autopsy surgery but - for some reason - left this
alleged bullet entrance hole in the forehead. They didn't alter that.
Even though the purpose was to cover up shots from the front.
Even more remarkably is that during the autopsy Humes mentions the
"secret" surgery that was performed - BY HIM - to everyone there.
Why would he do that?
I guess. Who knows what the heck is being proposed?

Humes was trying to laugh off the obvious surgery done by himself and
Boswell. It was obvious because he joked "The brain fell out into my
hands". It did that because all the things that had to be cut were
already cut. The spinal cord, the optic nerves and multiple arteries had
all been cut during the clandestine surgery to search for and remove
bullets and alter the body to look more like it was hit from above and
behind.

So the guy with the medical training who did this supposed alteration
slipped, and you, being clever picked up on it. Just like when Silverstein
slipped and admitted he was in on having all those people killed on 9-11.
Luckily villains always slip up and astute internet detectives are there
to catch them. What is difficult to ascertain is how reality is impacted
by these "gotchas".

Post by mainframetech
As to leaving the bullet hole showing in the 'stare-of-death' photo, it
was simply missed. It had to be ENLARGED to see it clearly, and it wasn't
obvious otherwise. For the prosectors, they had orders anyway to make it
look like a shot from above and behind was the cause of death, so they did
not even mention that wound in the AR. A serious breach of procedure. 2
of the autopsy team had seen the bullet wound in the forehead, and thought
it was a bullet wound, but because of their orders, they left it out of
the Autopsy Report (AR).
If the bullet wound had been in the AR, it would have been obvious to
many of the medical panels that reviewed the AR, that there was a shot
from the front, and they would have realized the blowout at the BOH was
the exit for that entry.
Chris

[Mark]

Post by Bud

Post by mainframetech

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.

We can add to this his claim that Humes, Boswell et al. altered the wounds
on JFK during pre-autopsy surgery but - for some reason - left this
alleged bullet entrance hole in the forehead. They didn't alter that.
Even though the purpose was to cover up shots from the front.
Even more remarkably is that during the autopsy Humes mentions the
"secret" surgery that was performed - BY HIM - to everyone there.
Why would he do that?
I guess. Who knows what the heck is being proposed?

Humes was trying to laugh off the obvious surgery done by himself and
Boswell. It was obvious because he joked "The brain fell out into my
hands". It did that because all the things that had to be cut were
already cut. The spinal cord, the optic nerves and multiple arteries had
all been cut during the clandestine surgery to search for and remove
bullets and alter the body to look more like it was hit from above and
behind.

So the guy with the medical training who did this supposed alteration
slipped, and you, being clever picked up on it. Just like when Silverstein
slipped and admitted he was in on having all those people killed on 9-11.
Luckily villains always slip up and astute internet detectives are there
to catch them. What is difficult to ascertain is how reality is impacted
by these "gotchas".

Post by mainframetech
As to leaving the bullet hole showing in the 'stare-of-death' photo, it
was simply missed. It had to be ENLARGED to see it clearly, and it wasn't
obvious otherwise. For the prosectors, they had orders anyway to make it
look like a shot from above and behind was the cause of death, so they did
not even mention that wound in the AR. A serious breach of procedure. 2
of the autopsy team had seen the bullet wound in the forehead, and thought
it was a bullet wound, but because of their orders, they left it out of
the Autopsy Report (AR).
If the bullet wound had been in the AR, it would have been obvious to
many of the medical panels that reviewed the AR, that there was a shot
from the front, and they would have realized the blowout at the BOH was
the exit for that entry.
Chris

Hey now, that's a good question, Bud. Chris he's not asking why it wasn't
seen by any of those you mentioned above, but why didn't the person/s who
altered the head not see it? Mark

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by Mark

Post by Bud

Post by mainframetech

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.

We can add to this his claim that Humes, Boswell et al. altered the wounds
on JFK during pre-autopsy surgery but - for some reason - left this
alleged bullet entrance hole in the forehead. They didn't alter that.
Even though the purpose was to cover up shots from the front.
Even more remarkably is that during the autopsy Humes mentions the
"secret" surgery that was performed - BY HIM - to everyone there.
Why would he do that?
I guess. Who knows what the heck is being proposed?

Humes was trying to laugh off the obvious surgery done by himself and
Boswell. It was obvious because he joked "The brain fell out into my
hands". It did that because all the things that had to be cut were
already cut. The spinal cord, the optic nerves and multiple arteries had
all been cut during the clandestine surgery to search for and remove
bullets and alter the body to look more like it was hit from above and
behind.

So the guy with the medical training who did this supposed alteration
slipped, and you, being clever picked up on it. Just like when Silverstein
slipped and admitted he was in on having all those people killed on 9-11.
Luckily villains always slip up and astute internet detectives are there
to catch them. What is difficult to ascertain is how reality is impacted
by these "gotchas".

Post by mainframetech
As to leaving the bullet hole showing in the 'stare-of-death' photo, it
was simply missed. It had to be ENLARGED to see it clearly, and it wasn't
obvious otherwise. For the prosectors, they had orders anyway to make it
look like a shot from above and behind was the cause of death, so they did
not even mention that wound in the AR. A serious breach of procedure. 2
of the autopsy team had seen the bullet wound in the forehead, and thought
it was a bullet wound, but because of their orders, they left it out of
the Autopsy Report (AR).
If the bullet wound had been in the AR, it would have been obvious to
many of the medical panels that reviewed the AR, that there was a shot
from the front, and they would have realized the blowout at the BOH was
the exit for that entry.
Chris

Hey now, that's a good question, Bud. Chris he's not asking why it wasn't
seen by any of those you mentioned above, but why didn't the person/s who
altered the head not see it? Mark

What? What you should be asking is why any conspirator altering wounds
would bring up the idea that some one had altered the body. If they
didn't say it maybe no one there would have been smart enough to think
of it.

ICE BULLET? Really, dude? Did YOU fall for that?

[mainframetech]

Post by Mark

Post by Bud

Post by mainframetech

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.

We can add to this his claim that Humes, Boswell et al. altered the wounds
on JFK during pre-autopsy surgery but - for some reason - left this
alleged bullet entrance hole in the forehead. They didn't alter that.
Even though the purpose was to cover up shots from the front.
Even more remarkably is that during the autopsy Humes mentions the
"secret" surgery that was performed - BY HIM - to everyone there.
Why would he do that?
I guess. Who knows what the heck is being proposed?

Humes was trying to laugh off the obvious surgery done by himself and
Boswell. It was obvious because he joked "The brain fell out into my
hands". It did that because all the things that had to be cut were
already cut. The spinal cord, the optic nerves and multiple arteries had
all been cut during the clandestine surgery to search for and remove
bullets and alter the body to look more like it was hit from above and
behind.

So the guy with the medical training who did this supposed alteration
slipped, and you, being clever picked up on it. Just like when Silverstein
slipped and admitted he was in on having all those people killed on 9-11.
Luckily villains always slip up and astute internet detectives are there
to catch them. What is difficult to ascertain is how reality is impacted
by these "gotchas".

Post by mainframetech
As to leaving the bullet hole showing in the 'stare-of-death' photo, it
was simply missed. It had to be ENLARGED to see it clearly, and it wasn't
obvious otherwise. For the prosectors, they had orders anyway to make it
look like a shot from above and behind was the cause of death, so they did
not even mention that wound in the AR. A serious breach of procedure. 2
of the autopsy team had seen the bullet wound in the forehead, and thought
it was a bullet wound, but because of their orders, they left it out of
the Autopsy Report (AR).
If the bullet wound had been in the AR, it would have been obvious to
many of the medical panels that reviewed the AR, that there was a shot
from the front, and they would have realized the blowout at the BOH was
the exit for that entry.
Chris

Hey now, that's a good question, Bud. Chris he's not asking why it wasn't
seen by any of those you mentioned above, but why didn't the person/s who
altered the head not see it? Mark

Nope. Try again. The bullet hole in the front of the head was seen
by a whole list of people, including some here. The 2 pathologists that
altered the head wounds to look more like they had been made by a shot
from above and behind were told to fake particular shots from above and
behind, and the forehead bullet hole didn't fit that, so it was left out
of the Autopsy Report (AR) altogether.

Chris

[bigdog]

Post by mainframetech

Post by Mark

Post by Bud

Post by mainframetech

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.

We can add to this his claim that Humes, Boswell et al. altered the wounds
on JFK during pre-autopsy surgery but - for some reason - left this
alleged bullet entrance hole in the forehead. They didn't alter that.
Even though the purpose was to cover up shots from the front.
Even more remarkably is that during the autopsy Humes mentions the
"secret" surgery that was performed - BY HIM - to everyone there.
Why would he do that?
I guess. Who knows what the heck is being proposed?

Humes was trying to laugh off the obvious surgery done by himself and
Boswell. It was obvious because he joked "The brain fell out into my
hands". It did that because all the things that had to be cut were
already cut. The spinal cord, the optic nerves and multiple arteries had
all been cut during the clandestine surgery to search for and remove
bullets and alter the body to look more like it was hit from above and
behind.

So the guy with the medical training who did this supposed alteration
slipped, and you, being clever picked up on it. Just like when Silverstein
slipped and admitted he was in on having all those people killed on 9-11.
Luckily villains always slip up and astute internet detectives are there
to catch them. What is difficult to ascertain is how reality is impacted
by these "gotchas".

Post by mainframetech
As to leaving the bullet hole showing in the 'stare-of-death' photo, it
was simply missed. It had to be ENLARGED to see it clearly, and it wasn't
obvious otherwise. For the prosectors, they had orders anyway to make it
look like a shot from above and behind was the cause of death, so they did
not even mention that wound in the AR. A serious breach of procedure. 2
of the autopsy team had seen the bullet wound in the forehead, and thought
it was a bullet wound, but because of their orders, they left it out of
the Autopsy Report (AR).
If the bullet wound had been in the AR, it would have been obvious to
many of the medical panels that reviewed the AR, that there was a shot
from the front, and they would have realized the blowout at the BOH was
the exit for that entry.
Chris

Hey now, that's a good question, Bud. Chris he's not asking why it wasn't
seen by any of those you mentioned above, but why didn't the person/s who
altered the head not see it? Mark

Nope. Try again. The bullet hole in the front of the head was seen
by a whole list of people, including some here. The 2 pathologists that
altered the head wounds to look more like they had been made by a shot
from above and behind were told to fake particular shots from above and
behind, and the forehead bullet hole didn't fit that, so it was left out
of the Autopsy Report (AR) altogether.

Do you have evidence they were told to do that or are you just assuming
that?

[mainframetech]

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by Mark

Post by Bud

Post by mainframetech

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.

We can add to this his claim that Humes, Boswell et al. altered the wounds
on JFK during pre-autopsy surgery but - for some reason - left this
alleged bullet entrance hole in the forehead. They didn't alter that.
Even though the purpose was to cover up shots from the front.
Even more remarkably is that during the autopsy Humes mentions the
"secret" surgery that was performed - BY HIM - to everyone there.
Why would he do that?
I guess. Who knows what the heck is being proposed?

Humes was trying to laugh off the obvious surgery done by himself and
Boswell. It was obvious because he joked "The brain fell out into my
hands". It did that because all the things that had to be cut were
already cut. The spinal cord, the optic nerves and multiple arteries had
all been cut during the clandestine surgery to search for and remove
bullets and alter the body to look more like it was hit from above and
behind.

So the guy with the medical training who did this supposed alteration
slipped, and you, being clever picked up on it. Just like when Silverstein
slipped and admitted he was in on having all those people killed on 9-11.
Luckily villains always slip up and astute internet detectives are there
to catch them. What is difficult to ascertain is how reality is impacted
by these "gotchas".

Post by mainframetech
As to leaving the bullet hole showing in the 'stare-of-death' photo, it
was simply missed. It had to be ENLARGED to see it clearly, and it wasn't
obvious otherwise. For the prosectors, they had orders anyway to make it
look like a shot from above and behind was the cause of death, so they did
not even mention that wound in the AR. A serious breach of procedure. 2
of the autopsy team had seen the bullet wound in the forehead, and thought
it was a bullet wound, but because of their orders, they left it out of
the Autopsy Report (AR).
If the bullet wound had been in the AR, it would have been obvious to
many of the medical panels that reviewed the AR, that there was a shot
from the front, and they would have realized the blowout at the BOH was
the exit for that entry.
Chris

Hey now, that's a good question, Bud. Chris he's not asking why it wasn't
seen by any of those you mentioned above, but why didn't the person/s who
altered the head not see it? Mark

Nope. Try again. The bullet hole in the front of the head was seen
by a whole list of people, including some here. The 2 pathologists that
altered the head wounds to look more like they had been made by a shot
from above and behind were told to fake particular shots from above and
behind, and the forehead bullet hole didn't fit that, so it was left out
of the Autopsy Report (AR) altogether.

Do you have evidence they were told to do that or are you just assuming
that?

OBVIOUSLY is was an educated guess. And logical, since it was a major
error in writing an AR. I doubt that Humes would forget it, so he had to
intentionally leave it out. Which helps to prove my point that it was a
phony AR.

Chris

[bigdog]

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by Mark

Post by Bud

Post by mainframetech

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.

We can add to this his claim that Humes, Boswell et al. altered the wounds
on JFK during pre-autopsy surgery but - for some reason - left this
alleged bullet entrance hole in the forehead. They didn't alter that.
Even though the purpose was to cover up shots from the front.
Even more remarkably is that during the autopsy Humes mentions the
"secret" surgery that was performed - BY HIM - to everyone there.
Why would he do that?
I guess. Who knows what the heck is being proposed?

Humes was trying to laugh off the obvious surgery done by himself and
Boswell. It was obvious because he joked "The brain fell out into my
hands". It did that because all the things that had to be cut were
already cut. The spinal cord, the optic nerves and multiple arteries had
all been cut during the clandestine surgery to search for and remove
bullets and alter the body to look more like it was hit from above and
behind.

So the guy with the medical training who did this supposed alteration
slipped, and you, being clever picked up on it. Just like when Silverstein
slipped and admitted he was in on having all those people killed on 9-11.
Luckily villains always slip up and astute internet detectives are there
to catch them. What is difficult to ascertain is how reality is impacted
by these "gotchas".

Post by mainframetech
As to leaving the bullet hole showing in the 'stare-of-death' photo, it
was simply missed. It had to be ENLARGED to see it clearly, and it wasn't
obvious otherwise. For the prosectors, they had orders anyway to make it
look like a shot from above and behind was the cause of death, so they did
not even mention that wound in the AR. A serious breach of procedure. 2
of the autopsy team had seen the bullet wound in the forehead, and thought
it was a bullet wound, but because of their orders, they left it out of
the Autopsy Report (AR).
If the bullet wound had been in the AR, it would have been obvious to
many of the medical panels that reviewed the AR, that there was a shot
from the front, and they would have realized the blowout at the BOH was
the exit for that entry.
Chris

Hey now, that's a good question, Bud. Chris he's not asking why it wasn't
seen by any of those you mentioned above, but why didn't the person/s who
altered the head not see it? Mark

Nope. Try again. The bullet hole in the front of the head was seen
by a whole list of people, including some here. The 2 pathologists that
altered the head wounds to look more like they had been made by a shot
from above and behind were told to fake particular shots from above and
behind, and the forehead bullet hole didn't fit that, so it was left out
of the Autopsy Report (AR) altogether.

Do you have evidence they were told to do that or are you just assuming
that?

OBVIOUSLY is was an educated guess.

OK, so you are just assuming that.

Post by mainframetech
And logical, since it was a major error in writing an AR.

So you follow up one assumption with another.

Post by mainframetech
I doubt that Humes would forget it, so he had to intentionally leave it
out.

And another.

Post by mainframetech
Which helps to prove my point that it was a phony AR.

You have failed to establish there was anything phony about the AR. Your
whole argument that it was phony is that it doesn't conform to your
beliefs. That isn't much of an argument. Humes did not leave out any
mention of a bullet hole in the AR. He specified it in the summary of the
report and correctly placed it where it actually was, in the parietal
bone. He couldn't have been expected to address your imaginary bullet
hole.

[mainframetech]

Post by bigdog

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by Mark

Post by Bud

Post by mainframetech

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.

We can add to this his claim that Humes, Boswell et al. altered the wounds
on JFK during pre-autopsy surgery but - for some reason - left this
alleged bullet entrance hole in the forehead. They didn't alter that.
Even though the purpose was to cover up shots from the front.
Even more remarkably is that during the autopsy Humes mentions the
"secret" surgery that was performed - BY HIM - to everyone there.
Why would he do that?
I guess. Who knows what the heck is being proposed?

Humes was trying to laugh off the obvious surgery done by himself and
Boswell. It was obvious because he joked "The brain fell out into my
hands". It did that because all the things that had to be cut were
already cut. The spinal cord, the optic nerves and multiple arteries had
all been cut during the clandestine surgery to search for and remove
bullets and alter the body to look more like it was hit from above and
behind.

So the guy with the medical training who did this supposed alteration
slipped, and you, being clever picked up on it. Just like when Silverstein
slipped and admitted he was in on having all those people killed on 9-11.
Luckily villains always slip up and astute internet detectives are there
to catch them. What is difficult to ascertain is how reality is impacted
by these "gotchas".

Post by mainframetech
As to leaving the bullet hole showing in the 'stare-of-death' photo, it
was simply missed. It had to be ENLARGED to see it clearly, and it wasn't
obvious otherwise. For the prosectors, they had orders anyway to make it
look like a shot from above and behind was the cause of death, so they did
not even mention that wound in the AR. A serious breach of procedure. 2
of the autopsy team had seen the bullet wound in the forehead, and thought
it was a bullet wound, but because of their orders, they left it out of
the Autopsy Report (AR).
If the bullet wound had been in the AR, it would have been obvious to
many of the medical panels that reviewed the AR, that there was a shot
from the front, and they would have realized the blowout at the BOH was
the exit for that entry.
Chris

Hey now, that's a good question, Bud. Chris he's not asking why it wasn't
seen by any of those you mentioned above, but why didn't the person/s who
altered the head not see it? Mark

Nope. Try again. The bullet hole in the front of the head was seen
by a whole list of people, including some here. The 2 pathologists that
altered the head wounds to look more like they had been made by a shot
from above and behind were told to fake particular shots from above and
behind, and the forehead bullet hole didn't fit that, so it was left out
of the Autopsy Report (AR) altogether.

Do you have evidence they were told to do that or are you just assuming
that?

OBVIOUSLY it was an educated guess.

OK, so you are just assuming that.

And logical, since it was a major error in writing an AR.

So you follow up one assumption with another.

I doubt that Humes would forget it, so he had to intentionally leave it
out.

And another.

Which helps to prove my point that it was a phony AR.

You have failed to establish there was anything phony about the AR. Your
whole argument that it was phony is that it doesn't conform to your
beliefs.

WRONG again! What a terrible record you've built up! I've shown the
eyewitness testimony from autopsy members that the AR was phony.
Physical proof was shown. And the statements were corroborated, so as
usual, you're wrong. But then you'll ay anything to escape the proofs.

Post by bigdog
That isn't much of an argument. Humes did not leave out any
mention of a bullet hole in the AR. He specified it in the summary of the
report and correctly placed it where it actually was, in the parietal
bone. He couldn't have been expected to address your imaginary bullet
hole.

He placed nothing of the kind. An Autopsy Report has to put out the
SIZE of a wound, not just location. And the size of the wound you're
trying to get away with was far too big to match the bullet hole of a
quarter inch diameter. So as usual, you've put out more false
information. The AR is missing the wound in question, which was located
where I said, in the right forehead/temple area.

Chris

[bigdog]

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by Mark

Post by Bud

Post by mainframetech

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.

We can add to this his claim that Humes, Boswell et al. altered the wounds
on JFK during pre-autopsy surgery but - for some reason - left this
alleged bullet entrance hole in the forehead. They didn't alter that.
Even though the purpose was to cover up shots from the front.
Even more remarkably is that during the autopsy Humes mentions the
"secret" surgery that was performed - BY HIM - to everyone there.
Why would he do that?
I guess. Who knows what the heck is being proposed?

Humes was trying to laugh off the obvious surgery done by himself and
Boswell. It was obvious because he joked "The brain fell out into my
hands". It did that because all the things that had to be cut were
already cut. The spinal cord, the optic nerves and multiple arteries had
all been cut during the clandestine surgery to search for and remove
bullets and alter the body to look more like it was hit from above and
behind.

So the guy with the medical training who did this supposed alteration
slipped, and you, being clever picked up on it. Just like when Silverstein
slipped and admitted he was in on having all those people killed on 9-11.
Luckily villains always slip up and astute internet detectives are there
to catch them. What is difficult to ascertain is how reality is impacted
by these "gotchas".

Post by mainframetech
As to leaving the bullet hole showing in the 'stare-of-death' photo, it
was simply missed. It had to be ENLARGED to see it clearly, and it wasn't
obvious otherwise. For the prosectors, they had orders anyway to make it
look like a shot from above and behind was the cause of death, so they did
not even mention that wound in the AR. A serious breach of procedure. 2
of the autopsy team had seen the bullet wound in the forehead, and thought
it was a bullet wound, but because of their orders, they left it out of
the Autopsy Report (AR).
If the bullet wound had been in the AR, it would have been obvious to
many of the medical panels that reviewed the AR, that there was a shot
from the front, and they would have realized the blowout at the BOH was
the exit for that entry.
Chris

Hey now, that's a good question, Bud. Chris he's not asking why it wasn't
seen by any of those you mentioned above, but why didn't the person/s who
altered the head not see it? Mark

Nope. Try again. The bullet hole in the front of the head was seen
by a whole list of people, including some here. The 2 pathologists that
altered the head wounds to look more like they had been made by a shot
from above and behind were told to fake particular shots from above and
behind, and the forehead bullet hole didn't fit that, so it was left out
of the Autopsy Report (AR) altogether.

Do you have evidence they were told to do that or are you just assuming
that?

OBVIOUSLY it was an educated guess.

OK, so you are just assuming that.

And logical, since it was a major error in writing an AR.

So you follow up one assumption with another.

I doubt that Humes would forget it, so he had to intentionally leave it
out.

And another.

Which helps to prove my point that it was a phony AR.

You have failed to establish there was anything phony about the AR. Your
whole argument that it was phony is that it doesn't conform to your
beliefs.

WRONG again! What a terrible record you've built up! I've shown the
eyewitness testimony from autopsy members that the AR was phony.
Physical proof was shown. And the statements were corroborated, so as
usual, you're wrong. But then you'll ay anything to escape the proofs.

Tell us which witness to the autopsy said the AR was phony.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog
That isn't much of an argument. Humes did not leave out any
mention of a bullet hole in the AR. He specified it in the summary of the
report and correctly placed it where it actually was, in the parietal
bone. He couldn't have been expected to address your imaginary bullet
hole.

He placed nothing of the kind. An Autopsy Report has to put out the
SIZE of a wound, not just location.

Perhaps if he had been an experienced forensic pathologist he wouldn't
have omitted that but that doesn't mean he didn't mention the wound. His
report did say it was an exit wound.

Post by mainframetech
And the size of the wound you're
trying to get away with was far too big to match the bullet hole of a
quarter inch diameter.

So after telling us he didn't mention the size of the wound you are now
telling us the wound he mentioned was too big. I suppose you think that is
logical.

Post by mainframetech
So as usual, you've put out more false
information. The AR is missing the wound in question, which was located
where I said, in the right forehead/temple area.

The AR is missing YOUR wound which it should because YOUR wound exists
only in your mind and the minds of your fellow conspiracy hobbyists. No
competent person placed it in YOUR location. No witness placed it in YOUR
location.

[mainframetech]

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by Mark

Post by Bud

Post by mainframetech

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.

We can add to this his claim that Humes, Boswell et al. altered the wounds
on JFK during pre-autopsy surgery but - for some reason - left this
alleged bullet entrance hole in the forehead. They didn't alter that.
Even though the purpose was to cover up shots from the front.
Even more remarkably is that during the autopsy Humes mentions the
"secret" surgery that was performed - BY HIM - to everyone there.
Why would he do that?
I guess. Who knows what the heck is being proposed?

Humes was trying to laugh off the obvious surgery done by himself and
Boswell. It was obvious because he joked "The brain fell out into my
hands". It did that because all the things that had to be cut were
already cut. The spinal cord, the optic nerves and multiple arteries had
all been cut during the clandestine surgery to search for and remove
bullets and alter the body to look more like it was hit from above and
behind.

So the guy with the medical training who did this supposed alteration
slipped, and you, being clever picked up on it. Just like when Silverstein
slipped and admitted he was in on having all those people killed on 9-11.
Luckily villains always slip up and astute internet detectives are there
to catch them. What is difficult to ascertain is how reality is impacted
by these "gotchas".

Post by mainframetech
As to leaving the bullet hole showing in the 'stare-of-death' photo, it
was simply missed. It had to be ENLARGED to see it clearly, and it wasn't
obvious otherwise. For the prosectors, they had orders anyway to make it
look like a shot from above and behind was the cause of death, so they did
not even mention that wound in the AR. A serious breach of procedure. 2
of the autopsy team had seen the bullet wound in the forehead, and thought
it was a bullet wound, but because of their orders, they left it out of
the Autopsy Report (AR).
If the bullet wound had been in the AR, it would have been obvious to
many of the medical panels that reviewed the AR, that there was a shot
from the front, and they would have realized the blowout at the BOH was
the exit for that entry.
Chris

Hey now, that's a good question, Bud. Chris he's not asking why it wasn't
seen by any of those you mentioned above, but why didn't the person/s who
altered the head not see it? Mark

Nope. Try again. The bullet hole in the front of the head was seen
by a whole list of people, including some here. The 2 pathologists that
altered the head wounds to look more like they had been made by a shot
from above and behind were told to fake particular shots from above and
behind, and the forehead bullet hole didn't fit that, so it was left out
of the Autopsy Report (AR) altogether.

Do you have evidence they were told to do that or are you just assuming
that?

OBVIOUSLY it was an educated guess.

OK, so you are just assuming that.

And logical, since it was a major error in writing an AR.

So you follow up one assumption with another.

I doubt that Humes would forget it, so he had to intentionally leave it
out.

And another.

Which helps to prove my point that it was a phony AR.

You have failed to establish there was anything phony about the AR. Your
whole argument that it was phony is that it doesn't conform to your
beliefs.

WRONG again! What a terrible record you've built up! I've shown the
eyewitness testimony from autopsy members that the AR was phony.
Physical proof was shown. And the statements were corroborated, so as
usual, you're wrong. But then you'll say anything to escape the proofs.

Tell us which witness to the autopsy said the AR was phony.

All but the pathologists and the radiologist, in other words all the
officers.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog
That isn't much of an argument. Humes did not leave out any
mention of a bullet hole in the AR. He specified it in the summary of the
report and correctly placed it where it actually was, in the parietal
bone. He couldn't have been expected to address your imaginary bullet
hole.

He placed nothing of the kind. An Autopsy Report has to put out the
SIZE of a wound, not just location.

Perhaps if he had been an experienced forensic pathologist he wouldn't
have omitted that but that doesn't mean he didn't mention the wound. His
report did say it was an exit wound.

Naturally, any CT knowing the reality would know that Humes had lied.
If he lied once, then he would have no bad conscience about doing it
again. You can stop trying to make the triangular bone flap out to be the
wound in question, since it was far larger than a quarter inch across.
It's really nutty to see how often you keep trying to make foolishness out
to be real.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
And the size of the wound you're
trying to get away with was far too big to match the bullet hole of a
quarter inch diameter.

So after telling us he didn't mention the size of the wound you are now
telling us the wound he mentioned was too big. I suppose you think that is
logical.

When you try to pretend the bone flap wound was the one in question,
it's size is known, so it's easy to tell that it isn't the bullet hole
wound.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
So as usual, you've put out more false
information. The AR is missing the wound in question, which was located
where I said, in the right forehead/temple area.

The AR is missing YOUR wound which it should because YOUR wound exists
only in your mind and the minds of your fellow conspiracy hobbyists.

WRONG! Just here in this forum there are corroborations on my sighting
of the bullet hole. So that's taken care of. If you and a few LNs don't
see anything, that's your problem, because you can't face the truth. And
there is still the list of eyewitnesses in the case that saw the wound,
including Finck, the primary pathologist.

Post by bigdog
No
competent person placed it in YOUR location. No witness placed it in YOUR
location.

So having run out of your phony excuses, you've devolved to insults.
I see.

Chris

[bigdog]

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
WRONG again! What a terrible record you've built up! I've shown the
eyewitness testimony from autopsy members that the AR was phony.
Physical proof was shown. And the statements were corroborated, so as
usual, you're wrong. But then you'll say anything to escape the proofs.

Tell us which witness to the autopsy said the AR was phony.

All but the pathologists and the radiologist, in other words all the
officers.

Why is it you can't quote any of the witnesses saying the AR was phony.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog
That isn't much of an argument. Humes did not leave out any
mention of a bullet hole in the AR. He specified it in the summary of the
report and correctly placed it where it actually was, in the parietal
bone. He couldn't have been expected to address your imaginary bullet
hole.

He placed nothing of the kind. An Autopsy Report has to put out the
SIZE of a wound, not just location.

Perhaps if he had been an experienced forensic pathologist he wouldn't
have omitted that but that doesn't mean he didn't mention the wound. His
report did say it was an exit wound.

Naturally, any CT knowing the reality would know that Humes had lied.

I have yet to meet a CT that knows reality.

Post by mainframetech
If he lied once, then he would have no bad conscience about doing it
again. You can stop trying to make the triangular bone flap out to be the
wound in question, since it was far larger than a quarter inch across.
It's really nutty to see how often you keep trying to make foolishness out
to be real.

Where in that summary does Humes say the exit wound he was referring to
was the triangular flap. That is your silly observation.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
And the size of the wound you're
trying to get away with was far too big to match the bullet hole of a
quarter inch diameter.

So after telling us he didn't mention the size of the wound you are now
telling us the wound he mentioned was too big. I suppose you think that is
logical.

When you try to pretend the bone flap wound was the one in question,
it's size is known, so it's easy to tell that it isn't the bullet hole
wound.

I'm not the one pretending the wound Humes was referring to was the bone
flap.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
So as usual, you've put out more false
information. The AR is missing the wound in question, which was located
where I said, in the right forehead/temple area.

The AR is missing YOUR wound which it should because YOUR wound exists
only in your mind and the minds of your fellow conspiracy hobbyists.

WRONG! Just here in this forum there are corroborations on my sighting
of the bullet hole.

Marsh and Amy??? Some corroboration.

Post by mainframetech
So that's taken care of. If you and a few LNs don't
see anything, that's your problem, because you can't face the truth. And
there is still the list of eyewitnesses in the case that saw the wound,
including Finck, the primary pathologist.

You keep citing witnesses who placed the wound in a different location.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog
No
competent person placed it in YOUR location. No witness placed it in YOUR
location.

So having run out of your phony excuses, you've devolved to insults.
I see.

I see you still can't cite a witness who placed the wound where you claim
it is.

[mainframetech]

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
WRONG again! What a terrible record you've built up! I've shown the
eyewitness testimony from autopsy members that the AR was phony.
Physical proof was shown. And the statements were corroborated, so as
usual, you're wrong. But then you'll say anything to escape the proofs.

Tell us which witness to the autopsy said the AR was phony.

All but the pathologists and the radiologist, in other words all the
officers.

Why is it you can't quote any of the witnesses saying the AR was phony.

Oh, a number of witnesses have said the AR was not believable.
James Sibert the FBI agent, for one:


"On 11th September, 1997, Sibert provided a deposition to the
Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). He was also interviewed by
William Matson Law for his book, In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the
JFK Assassination Medical Evidence (2005). Sibert rejected the account
given by Arlen Specter about the single-bullet theory: "What a liar. I
feel he got his orders from above - how far above I don't know."

From: http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKsibertW.htm

Here's Frank O'Neill FBI agent:

" O'Neill rejected the account given by Arlen Specter about the
single-bullet theory: "You go back to the veracity of the individuals who
were eye-witnesses - Governor Connally denied the single-bullet theory one
hundred percent. He's an eyewitness. He's right there. This is the man
who was there. He was the one who was hit. He should know what happened."

From: http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKoneillFX.htm

John Connally as well made complaints about the autopsy, particularly
the SBT.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog
That isn't much of an argument. Humes did not leave out any
mention of a bullet hole in the AR. He specified it in the summary of the
report and correctly placed it where it actually was, in the parietal
bone. He couldn't have been expected to address your imaginary bullet
hole.

He placed nothing of the kind. An Autopsy Report has to put out the
SIZE of a wound, not just location.

Perhaps if he had been an experienced forensic pathologist he wouldn't
have omitted that but that doesn't mean he didn't mention the wound. His
report did say it was an exit wound.

Naturally, any CT knowing the reality would know that Humes had lied.

I have yet to meet a CT that knows reality.

Post by mainframetech
If he lied once, then he would have no bad conscience about doing it
again. You can stop trying to make the triangular bone flap out to be the
wound in question, since it was far larger than a quarter inch across.
It's really nutty to see how often you keep trying to make foolishness out
to be real.

Where in that summary does Humes say the exit wound he was referring to
was the triangular flap. That is your silly observation.

Here's a caption for a picture of the head of JFK:

"Warren Commission exhibits 385 (left), 386 (center), and 388 (right).
Produced under the direction of JFK autopsy physician Dr. James Humes,
these drawings represent the Commission's view of the paths of two bullets
that struck Kennedy."

And here's the picture itself:

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pdf/WH16_CE_388.pdf


So if Humes helped get the picture right, then he's saying that the
bullet came out the bone flap over the right ear. In fact, YOU have said
it was an exit wound.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
And the size of the wound you're
trying to get away with was far too big to match the bullet hole of a
quarter inch diameter.

So after telling us he didn't mention the size of the wound you are now
telling us the wound he mentioned was too big. I suppose you think that is
logical.

When you try to pretend the bone flap wound was the one in question,
it's size is known, so it's easy to tell that it isn't the bullet hole
wound.

I'm not the one pretending the wound Humes was referring to was the bone
flap.

WRONG! Humes never referred to the bullet wound in question. The
size tells it all.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
So as usual, you've put out more false
information. The AR is missing the wound in question, which was located
where I said, in the right forehead/temple area.

The AR is missing YOUR wound which it should because YOUR wound exists
only in your mind and the minds of your fellow conspiracy hobbyists.

WRONG! Just here in this forum there are corroborations on my sighting
of the bullet hole.

Marsh and Amy??? Some corroboration.

Yep, that's 2 of them. Being an LN you have to try to put down all
proofs, but it won't wok. There's too many of them.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
So that's taken care of. If you and a few LNs don't
see anything, that's your problem, because you can't face the truth. And
there is still the list of eyewitnesses in the case that saw the wound,
including Finck, the primary pathologist.

You keep citing witnesses who placed the wound in a different location.

You won't get away with that one either. All placement falls within
the area I specified. And I'm getting tired of repeating everything. This
is all old news. I'm outa here.

Chris

[bigdog]

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
WRONG again! What a terrible record you've built up! I've shown the
eyewitness testimony from autopsy members that the AR was phony.
Physical proof was shown. And the statements were corroborated, so as
usual, you're wrong. But then you'll say anything to escape the proofs.

Tell us which witness to the autopsy said the AR was phony.

All but the pathologists and the radiologist, in other words all the
officers.

Why is it you can't quote any of the witnesses saying the AR was phony.

Oh, a number of witnesses have said the AR was not believable.
"On 11th September, 1997, Sibert provided a deposition to the
Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). He was also interviewed by
William Matson Law for his book, In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the
JFK Assassination Medical Evidence (2005). Sibert rejected the account
given by Arlen Specter about the single-bullet theory: "What a liar. I
feel he got his orders from above - how far above I don't know."
From: http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKsibertW.htm

Sibert calls Specter a liar regarding the SBT which has nothing to do with
the AR. The AR doesn't even mention the SBT. that was developed months
later.

Post by mainframetech
" O'Neill rejected the account given by Arlen Specter about the
single-bullet theory: "You go back to the veracity of the individuals who
were eye-witnesses - Governor Connally denied the single-bullet theory one
hundred percent. He's an eyewitness. He's right there. This is the man
who was there. He was the one who was hit. He should know what happened."
From: http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKoneillFX.htm

Again, it has nothing to do with the AR.

Post by mainframetech
John Connally as well made complaints about the autopsy, particularly
the SBT.

What the hell does the SBT have to do with the AR?

Three swings. Three misses. You just struck out.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog
That isn't much of an argument. Humes did not leave out any
mention of a bullet hole in the AR. He specified it in the summary of the
report and correctly placed it where it actually was, in the parietal
bone. He couldn't have been expected to address your imaginary bullet
hole.

He placed nothing of the kind. An Autopsy Report has to put out the
SIZE of a wound, not just location.

Perhaps if he had been an experienced forensic pathologist he wouldn't
have omitted that but that doesn't mean he didn't mention the wound. His
report did say it was an exit wound.

Naturally, any CT knowing the reality would know that Humes had lied.

I have yet to meet a CT that knows reality.

Post by mainframetech
If he lied once, then he would have no bad conscience about doing it
again. You can stop trying to make the triangular bone flap out to be the
wound in question, since it was far larger than a quarter inch across.
It's really nutty to see how often you keep trying to make foolishness out
to be real.

Where in that summary does Humes say the exit wound he was referring to
was the triangular flap. That is your silly observation.

"Warren Commission exhibits 385 (left), 386 (center), and 388 (right).
Produced under the direction of JFK autopsy physician Dr. James Humes,
these drawings represent the Commission's view of the paths of two bullets
that struck Kennedy."
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pdf/WH16_CE_388.pdf

Has nothing to do with the AR Summary nor the triangular bone flap.

Post by mainframetech
So if Humes helped get the picture right, then he's saying that the
bullet came out the bone flap over the right ear. In fact, YOU have said
it was an exit wound.

You really do have trouble focusing on the issue at hand. The question was
where in the AR Summary does it say the exit wound was referring to the
bone flap?

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
And the size of the wound you're
trying to get away with was far too big to match the bullet hole of a
quarter inch diameter.

So after telling us he didn't mention the size of the wound you are now
telling us the wound he mentioned was too big. I suppose you think that is
logical.

When you try to pretend the bone flap wound was the one in question,
it's size is known, so it's easy to tell that it isn't the bullet hole
wound.

I'm not the one pretending the wound Humes was referring to was the bone
flap.

WRONG! Humes never referred to the bullet wound in question. The
size tells it all.

The Summary says nothing about the size. You simply assume the exit Humes
was referring to was the bone flap.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
So as usual, you've put out more false
information. The AR is missing the wound in question, which was located
where I said, in the right forehead/temple area.

The AR is missing YOUR wound which it should because YOUR wound exists
only in your mind and the minds of your fellow conspiracy hobbyists.

WRONG! Just here in this forum there are corroborations on my sighting
of the bullet hole.

Marsh and Amy??? Some corroboration.

Yep, that's 2 of them. Being an LN you have to try to put down all
proofs, but it won't wok. There's too many of them.

Marsh and Amy don't prove anything.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
So that's taken care of. If you and a few LNs don't
see anything, that's your problem, because you can't face the truth. And
there is still the list of eyewitnesses in the case that saw the wound,
including Finck, the primary pathologist.

You keep citing witnesses who placed the wound in a different location.

You won't get away with that one either. All placement falls within
the area I specified. And I'm getting tired of repeating everything. This
is all old news. I'm outa here.

A description in the general area isn't a specification. When the location
was specified, it isn't where you imagine you see a bullet hole. There is
no dispute there was a bullet hole in the front right quadrant of JFK's
skull. The bone of contention (pun intended) is precisely where in that
quadrant the bullet hole was. When you look at where the witnesses
specified the bullet hole, it isn't were your bullet hole was. Not even
close.

[Mark]

Post by Bud

Post by mainframetech

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.

We can add to this his claim that Humes, Boswell et al. altered the wounds
on JFK during pre-autopsy surgery but - for some reason - left this
alleged bullet entrance hole in the forehead. They didn't alter that.
Even though the purpose was to cover up shots from the front.
Even more remarkably is that during the autopsy Humes mentions the
"secret" surgery that was performed - BY HIM - to everyone there.
Why would he do that?
I guess. Who knows what the heck is being proposed?

Humes was trying to laugh off the obvious surgery done by himself and
Boswell. It was obvious because he joked "The brain fell out into my
hands". It did that because all the things that had to be cut were
already cut. The spinal cord, the optic nerves and multiple arteries had
all been cut during the clandestine surgery to search for and remove
bullets and alter the body to look more like it was hit from above and
behind.

So the guy with the medical training who did this supposed alteration
slipped, and you, being clever picked up on it. Just like when Silverstein
slipped and admitted he was in on having all those people killed on 9-11.
Luckily villains always slip up and astute internet detectives are there
to catch them. What is difficult to ascertain is how reality is impacted
by these "gotchas".

Post by mainframetech
As to leaving the bullet hole showing in the 'stare-of-death' photo, it
was simply missed. It had to be ENLARGED to see it clearly, and it wasn't
obvious otherwise. For the prosectors, they had orders anyway to make it
look like a shot from above and behind was the cause of death, so they did
not even mention that wound in the AR. A serious breach of procedure. 2
of the autopsy team had seen the bullet wound in the forehead, and thought
it was a bullet wound, but because of their orders, they left it out of
the Autopsy Report (AR).
If the bullet wound had been in the AR, it would have been obvious to
many of the medical panels that reviewed the AR, that there was a shot
from the front, and they would have realized the blowout at the BOH was
the exit for that entry.
Chris

So the Parkland doctors AND the head alterers didn't see a
front-of-the-head wound, but you found it in a picture. Weeell doggies!,
Chris, I am impressed. Mark

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by Mark

Post by Bud

Post by mainframetech

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.

We can add to this his claim that Humes, Boswell et al. altered the wounds
on JFK during pre-autopsy surgery but - for some reason - left this
alleged bullet entrance hole in the forehead. They didn't alter that.
Even though the purpose was to cover up shots from the front.
Even more remarkably is that during the autopsy Humes mentions the
"secret" surgery that was performed - BY HIM - to everyone there.
Why would he do that?
I guess. Who knows what the heck is being proposed?

Humes was trying to laugh off the obvious surgery done by himself and
Boswell. It was obvious because he joked "The brain fell out into my
hands". It did that because all the things that had to be cut were
already cut. The spinal cord, the optic nerves and multiple arteries had
all been cut during the clandestine surgery to search for and remove
bullets and alter the body to look more like it was hit from above and
behind.

So the guy with the medical training who did this supposed alteration
slipped, and you, being clever picked up on it. Just like when Silverstein
slipped and admitted he was in on having all those people killed on 9-11.
Luckily villains always slip up and astute internet detectives are there
to catch them. What is difficult to ascertain is how reality is impacted
by these "gotchas".

Post by mainframetech
As to leaving the bullet hole showing in the 'stare-of-death' photo, it
was simply missed. It had to be ENLARGED to see it clearly, and it wasn't
obvious otherwise. For the prosectors, they had orders anyway to make it
look like a shot from above and behind was the cause of death, so they did
not even mention that wound in the AR. A serious breach of procedure. 2
of the autopsy team had seen the bullet wound in the forehead, and thought
it was a bullet wound, but because of their orders, they left it out of
the Autopsy Report (AR).
If the bullet wound had been in the AR, it would have been obvious to
many of the medical panels that reviewed the AR, that there was a shot
from the front, and they would have realized the blowout at the BOH was
the exit for that entry.
Chris

So the Parkland doctors AND the head alterers didn't see a
front-of-the-head wound, but you found it in a picture. Weeell doggies!,
Chris, I am impressed. Mark

Parkland missed a lot of things because they were trying to save a life,
not doing an autopsy. They missed the back wound and did not see a wound
on the back of the head, because they never turned the body over. Perry
thought the throat wound was an entrance. So does that mean that YOU have
to accept it as a fact?

Be careful when you start getting sloppy with your Argument by Authority.
I don't believe there were any alterers, but the autopsy doctors were
incompetent and under military orders so they missed some things also.

[mainframetech]

Post by Mark

Post by Bud

Post by mainframetech

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.

We can add to this his claim that Humes, Boswell et al. altered the wounds
on JFK during pre-autopsy surgery but - for some reason - left this
alleged bullet entrance hole in the forehead. They didn't alter that.
Even though the purpose was to cover up shots from the front.
Even more remarkably is that during the autopsy Humes mentions the
"secret" surgery that was performed - BY HIM - to everyone there.
Why would he do that?
I guess. Who knows what the heck is being proposed?

Humes was trying to laugh off the obvious surgery done by himself and
Boswell. It was obvious because he joked "The brain fell out into my
hands". It did that because all the things that had to be cut were
already cut. The spinal cord, the optic nerves and multiple arteries had
all been cut during the clandestine surgery to search for and remove
bullets and alter the body to look more like it was hit from above and
behind.

So the guy with the medical training who did this supposed alteration
slipped, and you, being clever picked up on it. Just like when Silverstein
slipped and admitted he was in on having all those people killed on 9-11.
Luckily villains always slip up and astute internet detectives are there
to catch them. What is difficult to ascertain is how reality is impacted
by these "gotchas".

Post by mainframetech
As to leaving the bullet hole showing in the 'stare-of-death' photo, it
was simply missed. It had to be ENLARGED to see it clearly, and it wasn't
obvious otherwise. For the prosectors, they had orders anyway to make it
look like a shot from above and behind was the cause of death, so they did
not even mention that wound in the AR. A serious breach of procedure. 2
of the autopsy team had seen the bullet wound in the forehead, and thought
it was a bullet wound, but because of their orders, they left it out of
the Autopsy Report (AR).
If the bullet wound had been in the AR, it would have been obvious to
many of the medical panels that reviewed the AR, that there was a shot
from the front, and they would have realized the blowout at the BOH was
the exit for that entry.
Chris

So the Parkland doctors AND the head alterers didn't see a
front-of-the-head wound, but you found it in a picture. Weeell doggies!,
Chris, I am impressed. Mark

You've made a mistake. 2 people on the autopsy team saw the bullet
hole, but it was NOT what the plotters wanted to be found or reported, so
it got left out of the AR. Here's an interview of one of those men, James
Jenkins, Technologist:

"JAMES JENKINS RECALLS EVIDENCE OF A BULLET HOLE IN THE RIGHT TEMPORAL
AREA, IMMEDIATELY FORWARD OF, AND JUST ABOVE, THE RIGHT EAR: Jenkins
recalled the large posterior hole in JFK’s head, but also recalled
a small (approximately 5 mm in diameter) hole in the right temporal bone,
just forward of and just above the right ear. He saw this quite early in
the autopsy, and recalls that Dr. Finck saw this and commented on it. The
circumference was gray, which suggested to Jenkins the passage of a
bullet. He said that even Dr. Finck speculated that a bullet might have
caused this hole. However, none of the pathologists ever returned to this
site, nor did they discuss it any further."

From: https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html

Finck was the main expert in these type of autopsies.

Chris

[bigdog]

Post by mainframetech

Post by Mark

Post by Bud

Post by mainframetech

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog
In another thread discussing the nature of JFK's head wounds, one of our
regular posters arguing that the stare-of-death photo shows an entrance
"The wound is NOT OBVIOUS and I have said that on a number of occasions
when you were repeating the same old stuff over and over, like now. The
quality of the photo is plenty good enough to see the obvious bullet hole
and the fleshy rim around it. "
The above passage was cut and pasted and is completely unedited. In
consecutive sentences he completely contradicted himself, first saying the
wound was not obvious and in the very next sentence saying the bullet hole
was obvious. I'm am used to conspiracy hobbyists being inconsistent in
their arguments but rarely do I find them completely reversing themselves
in just two sentences.

We can add to this his claim that Humes, Boswell et al. altered the wounds
on JFK during pre-autopsy surgery but - for some reason - left this
alleged bullet entrance hole in the forehead. They didn't alter that.
Even though the purpose was to cover up shots from the front.
Even more remarkably is that during the autopsy Humes mentions the
"secret" surgery that was performed - BY HIM - to everyone there.
Why would he do that?
I guess. Who knows what the heck is being proposed?

Humes was trying to laugh off the obvious surgery done by himself and
Boswell. It was obvious because he joked "The brain fell out into my
hands". It did that because all the things that had to be cut were
already cut. The spinal cord, the optic nerves and multiple arteries had
all been cut during the clandestine surgery to search for and remove
bullets and alter the body to look more like it was hit from above and
behind.

So the guy with the medical training who did this supposed alteration
slipped, and you, being clever picked up on it. Just like when Silverstein
slipped and admitted he was in on having all those people killed on 9-11.
Luckily villains always slip up and astute internet detectives are there
to catch them. What is difficult to ascertain is how reality is impacted
by these "gotchas".

Post by mainframetech
As to leaving the bullet hole showing in the 'stare-of-death' photo, it
was simply missed. It had to be ENLARGED to see it clearly, and it wasn't
obvious otherwise. For the prosectors, they had orders anyway to make it
look like a shot from above and behind was the cause of death, so they did
not even mention that wound in the AR. A serious breach of procedure. 2
of the autopsy team had seen the bullet wound in the forehead, and thought
it was a bullet wound, but because of their orders, they left it out of
the Autopsy Report (AR).
If the bullet wound had been in the AR, it would have been obvious to
many of the medical panels that reviewed the AR, that there was a shot
from the front, and they would have realized the blowout at the BOH was
the exit for that entry.
Chris

So the Parkland doctors AND the head alterers didn't see a
front-of-the-head wound, but you found it in a picture. Weeell doggies!,
Chris, I am impressed. Mark

You've made a mistake. 2 people on the autopsy team saw the bullet
hole, but it was NOT what the plotters wanted to be found or reported, so
it got left out of the AR. Here's an interview of one of those men, James
"JAMES JENKINS RECALLS EVIDENCE OF A BULLET HOLE IN THE RIGHT TEMPORAL
AREA, IMMEDIATELY FORWARD OF, AND JUST ABOVE, THE RIGHT EAR: Jenkins
recalled the large posterior hole in JFK’s head, but also recalled
a small (approximately 5 mm in diameter) hole in the right temporal bone,
just forward of and just above the right ear. He saw this quite early in
the autopsy, and recalls that Dr. Finck saw this and commented on it. The
circumference was gray, which suggested to Jenkins the passage of a
bullet. He said that even Dr. Finck speculated that a bullet might have
caused this hole. However, none of the pathologists ever returned to this
site, nor did they discuss it any further."
From: https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html
Finck was the main expert in these type of autopsies.

Chris still can't figure out that his imaginary bullet hole is nowhere
near the temporal bone which is where Jenkins placed it or the parietal
bone which is where the AR which Finck signed placed it. He thinks people
who placed a bullet hole elsewhere support his story that it was in the
forehead/temple. I suppose since it is Chris's term he is entitled to
define where the forehead/temple is and he has defined it so broadly that
any placement of the wound in the front right quadrant of JFK's skull
would be in his forehead/temple. Of course none of these witnesses support
his very specific placement of the wound in the forehead temple which is
nowhere near where Jenkins or Finck placed it.