Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by John McAdamsYou have completely ignored my point, which is the fact that a bullet
path can't be probed does *not* prove the bullet did not transit.
Wrong,. I did NOT ignore your point. I agreed with your point,
however, it was not any kind of proof that a bullet did indeed pass
through the whole body of JFK. The evidence and the witnesses say
otherwise.
Post by John McAdamsDid you even bother to read this?
Of course, long ago, and recently too. and did you read the statement
of James Jenkins who saw the probing from inside the chest cavity and saw
clearly that the probe was rubbing on the pleura and there was no place
for it to go through? The organs were missing at that point, and he had a
clear view of the probing from the other side.
Post by John McAdamsPost by mainframetechPost by John McAdams<quote on>
(430) The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck,
and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the
bullet pathway in President Kennedy’s neck probably resulted from
their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into
the same position it was in when the missile penetrated. Rigor mortis
may have hindered this manipulation. Such placement would have enabled
reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and shoulder when the
missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to
determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce
false tracks and misinformation.
<end quote>
As for the business about the pleura: the pleura *covers* the lungs,
and the bullet passed about the level of the tip of the right lung,
bruising both the pleura and the lung.
You somehow are ignoring damage to the strap muscles and the fascia
about the trachea.
Wrong again. I believe the Parkland doctors who said that the throat
wound was an entry, and NOT an exit. It was described as a neat round
hole by Carrico, the first doctor to deal with the situation before they
used it for a tracheotomy.
Post by John McAdamsAll of that indicates the passage of a bullet.
No, it indicates the passage of a bullet from outside to a point
somewhere inside the body, but NOT the upper back. It was probably
stopped by a bone of the spine and picked out by Humes and Boswell during
their clandestine work on the body BEFORE the autopsy.
Post by John McAdamsPost by mainframetechDon't be ridiculous! I'm not going to say the right lung wasn't
bruised. It was indeed bruised, and it was a bruise almost a full 2
inches in diameter! The Pleura was also bruised. Think what that 2
inches means! Now I'll give you a line from the Autopsy Report (AR) where
it describes the wound at the pleura, which is just inside the back
"In This region there is contusion of the parietal pleura and of the
extreme apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. In both
instances the diameter of contusion and ecchymosis at the point of maximal
involvement measures 5 cm. Both the visceral and parietal pleura ARE
INTACT overlying these areas of trauma."
Page 5 JFK Autopsy Report
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf
5 cm is almost 2 inches! That means that those tissues got hit hard,
but since the prosectors found that the pleura was INTACT, there was NO
PATH through the pleura. No tears, and no punctures. Meaning that the
bullet didn't go past that point!
No. It means the bullet damaged the tissue as it passed.
Bullet damage would be a tear or puncture of tissue, of which there
were none. The bruises mentioned were 2 inches across showing that it
wasn't simply a "tip" of the lung that was touched by the bullet, it was a
larger portion of the lung and pleura. In fact, James Jenkins had said
that it wasn't the tip of the top section of the lung that was hit, but
the middle section of the lung, so there is some disagreement there with
Humes' AR.
Post by John McAdamsA centimeter lower and it would have penetrated the lung.
A centimeter higher and it would not have bruised the pleura and the
lung.
This is not rocket science.
Apparently it has stumped many here. You don't fire a bullet into soft
tissue and get a simple bruise, you get a tear or puncture. The lung and
pleura didn't simply slide aside so a bullet could pass. A bullet would
have ploughed through, tearing any tissue that got in its way. And of
course, it would be correct for the pathologists to dissect the path of
the bullet, if there was one. Their response to this problem was in the
"The missile path through the fascia and musculature cannot be easily
probed." And there is nothing after that because they did NOT dissect the
path further, mostly because there was no path beyond the pleura.
The AR also spoke of the bullet exit as "the wound presumably of exit",
pointing out how unsure Humes was of what he was saying. He was one of
the autopsy team that SAW the PROOF that the bullet hadn't gone past the
pleura, so he was naturally having trouble with the orders he was given to
lie in the AR.
A bullet showing the signs that this bullet showed is called a 'short
shot' by some medics. Some failure in the firing of it caused it to have
less power and not penetrate. I noticed no comment on the Sworn testimony
"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I’d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That’s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That’s about,
I’d say, an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf
Page 53
Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many
types of bullet.
Whether his sworn testimony is true, it makes sense given a 'short
shot' bullet. It would penetrate no more than an inch or so, and could
easily fall out when the body was raised for an X-ray. This type of
problem was considered by Humes when they first couldn't find the bullet.
He commented at one point that it might have fallen out due to heart
manipulation at Parkland.
John, maybe you'll have better luck than I have in explaining this very
simple concept to Chris. A bullet tears soft tissue it goes through and
bruises soft tissue it passes next to. As you said, this is not rocket
science.
He didn't do any better than you. You just don't seem to understand
that a bullet fired at soft tissue does NOT simple push it aside and go on
about its business. It tears a path through it or punches a hole in it.
You note yourself that a bullet "tears soft tissue" it goes through.
Did we got too fast for you. The bullet did not go through the pleura. The
bullet passed over the pleura.
So you think there is some empty space over the pleura just waiting to
let a bullet pass through without touching anything...LOL!
There is NO EMPTY SPACE in the body of a human. EVERY space is used
up with organs and tissue. If a bullet passed over the pleura, then it
would hit whatever is normally there above the pleura and definitely leave
a trail behind it of torn or punctured tissue for the prosectors to
dissect, which they didn't because there was no path there.
The bullet passed through the muscles at that point.
WRONG! You keep trying again and again to pass a bullet past the
pleura, but there was NO PATH for that to happen or there would have been
damaged tissue.
People far more qualified than you or I say otherwise. There was damaged
tissue. The bullet passed through the strap muscles then continued to
strike the trachea before exiting the throat.
That was not possible for the back wound bullet to do that damage,
because as was already said, and which you failed to listen to...IS THAT
THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT' AS THE AR STATED. THE BULLET HAD TO GO THROUGH
THE PLEURA TO REACH THE STRAP MUSCLES, AND THE PLEURA WAS 'INTACT', AS
HUMES SAID IN THE AR. Are you trying to make a liar out of Humes? :)
Maybe we should send you one of those old Visible Man kits. You seem to
have a problem with basic anatomy. The bullet didn't have to go through
the pleura and it didn't. It passed over the top of the pleura. Just what
the hell do you think is above the pleura? When you figure that out, you
will have your answer as to what tissue the bullet passed through.
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechNOT just bruised tissue, but damaged tissue from a bullet
that had slammed its way past.
The strap muscles are tissue and they were damaged.
THE PLEURA IS BEFORE THE STRAP MUSCLES...WHEN WILL YOU LISTEN?
Is that so. And what do you suppose is ABOVE the pleura?
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechThere was no such evidence of a bullet
that did that. It stopped at the pleura and THAT is the evidence that ALL
on the autopsy team saw.
I'll go with what the highly trained and experienced people have to say
and ignore your amateurish analysis.
All the highly trained experts in the world cannot render a conclusion
that is meaningful if they were not allowed to see the proof in the body
with the organs removed.
But you can? <chuckle>
Post by mainframetechNONE of the panels had that option to see that,
including to interview the full autopsy team. That had only the AR which
was ordered to contain certain lies.
Right. They needed three techies in their early 20s to explain the medical
forensics to them. <more chuckles>
Post by mainframetechYou and I have the luck to be in a position to hear and see the proof
from the internal views of the body, and see the statements of the full
autopsy team. Sadly, you've been brainwashed by the WCR so only one of us
has the answers.
We don't get to see anything. We have an autopsy report signed by all
three pathologists on the autopsy team that says one thing and we have the
opinions of three early 20s techies who say something else and of course
you go with the techies and ignore the pathologists.
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechHowever, when
they probed the back wound, James Jenkins could see the probe rubbing on
the pleura from his viewpoint looking into the chest cavity.
Competent medical examiners know this proves nothing. Since Jenkins wasn't
a medical examiner, he probably didn't know this.
Show me a medical examiner's statement to that effect, or it's crap.
Finck testified at the Clay Shaw trial that forcing a probe through a
bullet track can cause a false passage.
That is NOT what I asked for. And you shouldn't try to pass off that
baloney in attempting to answer the challenge.
I guess I have to hold your hand for you since you cannot look this up yourself.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/finckshaw.htm
Q: You are one of the three autopsy specialist and pathologists at the
time, and you saw what you described as an entrance wound in the neck area
of the President of the United States who had just been assassinated, and
you were only interested in the other wound but not interested in the
track through his neck, is that what you are telling me?
A: I was interested in the track and I had observed the conditions of
bruising between the point of entry in the back of the neck and the point
of exit at the front of the neck, which is entirely compatible with the
bullet path.
Q: But you were told not to go into the area of the neck, is that your
testimony?
A: From what I recall, yes, but I don't remember by whom.
Q: Did you attempt to probe this wound in the back of the neck?
A: I did.
Q: With what?
A: With an autopsy room probe, and I did not succeed in probing from the
entry in the back of the neck in any direction and I can explain this.
This was due to the contraction of muscles preventing the passage of an
instrument, and if I had forced the probe through the neck I may have
created a false passage.
Q: Isn't this good enough reason to you as a pathologist to go further and
dissect this area in an attempt to ascertain whether or not there is a
passageway here as a result of a bullet?
A: I did not consider a dissection of the path.
Q: How far did the probe go into the back of the neck?
A: Repeat the question.
Q: How far did the probe go into this wound?
A: I couldn't introduce this probe for any extended depth. I tried and I
can give explanations why. At times you cannot probe a path, this is
because of the contraction of muscles and different layers. It is not like
a pipe, like a channel. It may be extremely difficult to probe a wound
through muscle.
Finck was a medical examiner and he explained twice during the above
passage as to why a probe might not pass through a bullet track.
You asked for a statement by a medical examiner and I just gave it to you.
Post by mainframetech"...when they probed the back wound, James Jenkins could see the probe
rubbing on the pleura from his viewpoint looking into the chest cavity."
So tell us which member of the autopsy team this quote came from.
Post by mainframetechYou replied that the experts said that meant nothing, which is, as
usual, WRONG.
No, it is right as anyone who reads the passage from Finck's Clay Shaw
trial testimony can plainly see.
Post by mainframetechYour phony attempt to clean up the challenge fails
miserably. NO EXPERT would say that Jenkins VIEWING the end of the probe
rubbing in the pleura with NOTHING else in the way, and seeing NO PATH for
the probe with a completely open chest cavity, is proof that your
contention is crap. The body was completely open and if there were a path
for the probe to pass through once it was found, Jenkins could have seen
it.
The organs were removed. The bullet didn't pass through those organs. It
passed through the muscle tissue above those organs. Do we really have to
draw a picture for you?
Post by mainframetechThe problem you have is that the bullet left a 2 inch diameter bruise
in the pleura and lung.
Since the bullet wasn't 2 inches in diameter that should tell you that a
bullet can cause bruising to tissue near the bullet track.
Post by mainframetechThat mean that the bullet didn't simply graze the
pleura, it slammed into it and was stopped at that point. And all on the
autopsy team could see it as was stated.
If it meant that, I'm sure all those qualified medical examiners could
have figured that out. The reality is they reached a completely different
conclusion than you have. I'm going with them.
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechJenkins had a masters in pathology at that point.
Wrong. Jenkins was only 20 years old and was still taking classes at the
Bethesda Medical Technology School. Where the hell did you get the ide he
had a masters degree at that point.
Ah! I beg your pardon. He received it a bit later.
Do you have a cite that Jenkins later received a masters degree in
pathology. That's news to me. In any case, at the time of the autopsy, he
was not qualified to render forensic opinions regarding the medical
evidence.
Post by mainframetechHowever, all on
the autopsy team knew the parts of the body and having been through many,
many autopsies, knew what they were seeing. And Jenkins saw what the
prosectors also saw.
You continue to make the ridiculous assumption that the pathologists
reached the same conclusion as a 20 year old techie. So rather than let
the pathologists tell us what they saw through their official autopsy
report, you prefer to let the 20 year old techie tell us what they saw.
Post by mainframetechA simple physical situation, which anyone could see.
There was no path for the probe to go through the pleura, which was in the
way of the bullet. and there was nothing else hiding any path from his
sight. The pleura is not soft tissue that can close up after a bullet
passes it. It is a tough sheet of tissue covering the lungs.
This is the kind of silly conclusions one reaches when he turns to the
least qualified people present and ignores what the most qualified people
had to say for themselves. It gets back to your inability to weigh
evidence. Don't feel bad. David Lifton and Doug Horne seem to have the
same problem.
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogHe wasn't some dummy
like those that are not Technologists.
They weren't qualified to render judgements about the medical evidence
either. They lacked the training to do that.
So now you're bragging that YOU have the ability to determine who has
or has not the technical ability to recognize a hole in a pleura or not?
I have never presented my own opinions regarding the medical evidence. I
have always cited the opinions of the original three pathologists are the
various qualified medical examiners who reviewed their work. You on the
other hand tell us you can discern from a poor quality copy of a photo an
entrance wound in the forehead where dozens of qualified medical examiners
looking at the high quality original photo could not see. It doesn't get
any sillier than that.
Post by mainframetechWho are you kidding? You have no more expertise than a kid.
Nor do you. One of us is smart enough to realize he has no expertise and
the other goes by the nickname mainframetech.
Post by mainframetechNot to
mention that the situation is NOT one that requires medical expertise.
So after chastising me for pretending to have expertise which I have never
claimed, you turn around and tell us expertise is not necessary.
Post by mainframetechIt needs only what we all have, a knowledge of physical objects and damage
to things in the way of other things.
It takes a lot more than that to render judgements regarding the medical
evidence. As I said, only one of us is smart enough to know that.
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechAnd YOUR guess that Jenkins seeing
the probe from the chest cavity means nothing is total baloney. You had
to have made that up, since it's so foolish.
My judgement doesn't matter but the judgement of the three pathologists as
well as all those review panels does matter and they all dispute Jenkins
conclusions which isn't surprising since they were qualified to render
such judgements and Jenkins was not. He was a corpsman in a work/study
program.
Not one medical professional spoke one word about Jenkins or his
sighting.
No, they just rendered an opinion that is diametrically opposed to what
Jenkins thought. All of them did that.
Post by mainframetechIf you're going to try to get away with that tired old gimmick
of quoting from the AR, don't bother. You'd be wrong anyway.
Oh, so now it is a gimmick to look to qualified people to render expert
opinions regarding a highly technical and specialized field.
Post by mainframetechJenkins was NOT a corpsman in a work/study program. He was a trained
Technologist with many autopsies of experience.
Explain how those two are incompatible. Jenkins was a Navy corpsman. He
was in a work/study program. Part of that program called for him to
perform tasks to assist the pathologists in conducting autopsies.
Post by mainframetechBut it doesn't matter if
he was a bum off the street.
Not to you. If a bum off the street told a story you wanted to believe,
you would.
Post by mainframetechThe problem is simply one of knowing that a
probe had no way to travel through the pleura,
Why would it. The bullet didn't travel through the pleura. The bullet
traveled over the pleura.
Post by mainframetechwhich had no holes or tears
in it. The same goes for O'Connor who corroborated the PROOF they ALL
saw, including the "doctors" (prosectors).
So you have a 21 year old techie corroborating a 20 year old techie. I
guess that's a good enough reason to dismiss the unanimous opinions of all
those highly esteemed medical examiners. That includes Dr. Earl Rose who
you believe should have conducted the original autopsy. He concurred with
the opinions stated in the autopsy report.
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechNow think
carefully about this. He was looking from inside the chest cavity, as the
prosectors were probing from the back and only going in an inch or so, not
because probing is hard in a body after rigor mortis sets in, but because
there was NO PATH and they were hitting the pleura, and Jenkins could see
that from his viewpoint! Think it through, and if you're finally able to
picture it, tell John so he can rest easy in his mind about this.
You still can't understand that when the muscles are repositioned from
where they were at the time the bullet passed, any bullet track would get
closed off. It's a pretty simple concept which is why we are wondering why
you are having such a difficult time understanding it.
WRONG! How stupid can you get? Aren't you paying attention? Your
phony idea of the wound closing up due to rigor mortis is as phony as a 3
dollar bill.
Rigor mortis is just one factor. The other factor is that at the time JFK
was shot his upper right arm was raised and resting on the side of the
car. At the autopsy he was in an anatomical position with his arms at his
side. The muscles in the shoulder would therefore have been aligned
differently when he was shot than when the autopsy was conducted. Still a
simple concept which seems to have you stumped.
GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD! THERE WERE NO ORGANS IN THE CHEST CAVITY
WHEN JENKINS SAW THAT THE PROBE WAS TRYING TO RUB ON THE PLEURA AND THERE
WAS NO PATH THROUGH IT!
You still can't understand the bullet went through the muscles that were
above all those organs.
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechTHERE WAS NO BULLET TRACK SINCE THE PROBE WAS RUBBING ON THE
PLEURA AND JENKINS COULD SEE IT WITH THE ORGANS REMOVED. THERE WAS ALSO
NO PATH FOER THE PROBE TO GO THROUGH, AS SEEN BY JENKINS. THE CHEST
CAVITY WAS EMPTY, AND THE PROBE STILL COULD NOT GO PAST THE PLEURA.
THINK THINK, THINK!
I have. Apparently you haven't. At least you haven't been thinking very
clearly. Otherwise you wouldn't argue that the inability to pass a probe
through the bullet track indicates there wasn't one. You won't be able to
find a competent medical examiner who shares that belief. They know
better.
Stop pretending to be so stupid! A probe cannot go through a pleura if
there is no hole or tear in it.
Of course the probe couldn't go through the pleura. The bullet didn't go
through the pleura. The bullet passed above the pleura.
Post by mainframetechThere were NO ORGANS in the chest cavity
at the time that Jenkins made his statement. It was clear to him that
there was no place for the prove to go through, and there was nothing
there in the way of his sight.
The bullet passed through the strap muscles, not any of the organs and not
through the chest cavity.
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechSo tell me which tissues it tore through BEFORE it got to the throat
wound?
The strap muscles.
A shame you think that. Since the bullet didn't go anywhere as was
proved by removing the organs and seeing the proof in the body.
This is your where you substitute your uninformed opinion for the
unanimous opinion of the competent people.
WRONG! This is where you try to pretend your uninformed opinion means
something, yet it fails miserably.
My opinion doesn't mean anything. The unanimous opinions of highly
qualified medical examiners does mean a great deal.
It was stated that ALL the prosectors and the autopsy team saw the
proof. Why are you trying to pretend that is untrue?
That wasn't stated by the prosectors. That was stated by a 20 year old
techie. You keep trying to let the 20 year old techie tell us what the
prosectors saw instead of letting the prosectors tell us what they saw.
Pretty silly.
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechThe so-called competent people could
not see inside the body and therefore could not see the problem where the
pleura stopped the bullet. Think it through instead of talking.
They saw a hell of a lot more than you and knew a hell of a lot more than
you which is why it is silly for you to continue to try to substitute your
judgement for theirs.
How did they see a lot more with the photos missing?
Because there were lots and lots of photos that weren't missing (if any
actually were). They saw more than enough to convince them the bullet
passed through the torso and exited from the throat.
Post by mainframetechIf they had seen
what the autopsy team saw, they would have decided differently.
They decided the same thing the autopsy team decided, that the bullet
exited from the throat. The techies don't speak for the autopsy team. The
pathologists do. They told us what they saw in the report they signed and
in testimony given before various venues.
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechUnfortunately the medical panels couldn't see that so they were limited
right away.
They saw in the photos what the pathologists saw that night. Convincing
proof the bullet passed clean through the body. That trumps your
uninformed opinion.
What photos? Show them to me and we'll see what they saw. Otherwise
you have nothing and as usual are making stuff up. As you already know
the photographers said there were many missing sets of photos. And if the
right photos were there, the medical panels would have ruled differently
than they did.
So now you are going to claim they all lied and never really got to see
the medical evidence. Truly amazing.
You're being stupid again. I do NOT claim that 'they' all lied.
Only the prosectors that signed off on the AR, AFTER they saw the proof in
the body. The others were honest, and told us what was there to see.
The review panels made conclusions based on the photos and x-rays they
saw. You seem to be disputing that they saw that material.
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechThere were bruises on the pleura and the right lung, and NO TEARS, and
NO PATH from the pleura and beyond.
Why would it tear the pleura or the lung when it passed over the top of
them?
Because there is NO empty space in the body over the pleura to allow
bullets to freely pass through leaving NO tear or puncture. Think it
through. You're just saying words at this point and not picturing what
your talking about.
Who said there was an empty space? The bullet passed through the strap
muscles.
WRONG! The bullet couldn't reach the strap muscles, since the pleura
was in the way. to get past the pleura, it had to be torn or punctured,
and the right lung too. As well, Humes decided that the bullet was fired
downward at a strong angle from above and behind. Did it also make an
almost 90 degree turn once it reached the pleura and go out the throat
wound? Naah.
The bullet passed through the strap muscles and over the top of the pleura
and lung. You still seem stumped.
I'm clear on what happened from the people that made statements of
what they saw.
The least qualified people available.
Post by mainframetechThe bullet could NOT pass through the strap muscles, since
it would have to go through the pleura and lung first, and it didn't do
that. So you're WRONG again.
Is that what they taught you at medical school? You've already told us
there is not empty space in the human body. So tell us what tissue is
directly above the lung and pleura.
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechAnd they didn't dissect the path,
which was their responsibility. The reason being that there was NO PATH
after the pleura.
Too bad you can't find a competent medical examiner who agrees with you.
How could they? They were limited in what they could see and who they
could talk to. There's no way they could come to a proper conclusion the
way they were fooled.
And we are supposed to accept your uninformed opinion over theirs?
<chuckle>
The difference is that I know the proof and they were kept from it.
<belly laugh>
This gets funnier the more times you repeat it.
Are you going to pretend that you're not repeating your beliefs from
the WCR?
The WC backed up their findings with rock solid evidence. You, not so much.
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechRemember, that James Jenkins was looking into the chest
cavity from the other side of the back wound with the organs removed and
SAW them probing and there was NO hole or tear for them to put the probe
through. It was rubbing on the pleura.
Still having trouble with understanding that a probe cannot always pass
through a bullet channel?
Still having trouble realizing that James Jenkins WATCHED the probe
rubbing on the pleura after the organs were removed from the body?
You just confirmed my previous observation.
WRONG! Your comment was foolish. A bullet can indeed "pass through a
bullet channel". There may be an occasion where it cannot, but that's not
the case here. Here we have a case where there was NO CHANNEL for the
bullet, and it didn't have the strength to go past the pleura. Yet there
was clarity in the chest cavity to see everything and there was NO PATH
for the probe to find.
You think repeating this crap hundreds of times gives it more credibility?
WHOA! You're repeating your crap hundreds o times, and it causes me to
correct you over an over every time you do it.
I'm just pointing out your silliness which you seem determined to continue
to repeat.
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechHe was
watching from inside the chest cavity and could see the pleura and the
probe rubbing on it because there was no place for the probe to go
through. Jenkins could see all that! Think...think! Picture it.
All those review panels could see all that in the photos and remained
convinced the bullet went all the way through. When there is complete
agreement from competent people, why should we accept the opinions of
incompetent people?
How could the panels see that, since the photos were missing?
I don't know if any photos were missing. I know there were lots of photos
that were not missing and they review panels saw enough of them to see
that the bullet had gone completely through.
If the photos were there and showed what has been described by
statements from the autopsy team, then the panels would have decided
differently.
So that is what you believe. If the review panels had actually seen the
photos and x-rays they would have agreed with statements made by the young
techies and disputed the findings of the pathologists on the team. Amazing
what you will convince yourself of.
Post by mainframetechWhy must I repeat this to you so often?
Damn good question. I wish there was an equally good answer.
Post by mainframetechIt's so simple.
and I've shown the photographers saying that they were forced to sign off
even though there were missing photos.
If there were photos missing, they weren't all missing. Did any of the
photographers say that all of the photos were missing. Did any of them say
most of them were missing. The review panels based their findings on the
photos and x-rays that were NOT missing and those materials convinced them
JFK was shot twice from behind and that the bullet that hit JFK in the
back exited from his throat.
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechIf they
had seen what the autopsy team saw, they would have decided differently.
So your argument is that if they saw what they autopsy team saw, they
wouldn't have agreed with the autopsy team's findings. Brilliant,
Sherlock.
At last you figured it out! What a trial to get that through to you.
The autopsy team saw that the bullet stopped at the pleura and lung.
No they didn't. A 20 year old techie thought that's what he saw because he
was not trained in forensic medicine. He didn't understand what the
medical evidence was indicating.
Post by mainframetechIf
you want to include the AR, there some proof there too, but not as much
because Humes had orders to lie there.
Your imaginary orders are evidence of nothing. You base your belief that
such orders were given because the opinions of the pathologists were at
odds with the opinions of the techies and for some silly reason you think
the techies opinions should carry more weight.
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechYou keep trying to pretend the photos exist. Go find them and we can
prove your wrong.
The photos do exist and the review panels saw them. More recently those
photos were reviewed by Dr. Peter Cummings who also concurred. But you
keep believing what a couple technicians in their early 20s concluded and
ignore what all those highly trained people have to say. It ensures you
will remain perpetually confused.
WRONG! Prove that the photos of the pleura and lung exist for the
panels to see. Or give up your ridiculous story.
All the review panels based their opinions on what they saw in the photos
and x-rays. Now you want to suggest that they never actually saw such
materials which would mean they lied too. The original pathologists lied
and all the review panels lied. Everybody lied but the three techies in
their early 20s.
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechThe above is clear proof that the bullet did NOT go past the pleura,
and that also says that it was a 'short shot' as one autopsy team member
called it.
If it was clear proof, competent medical examiners would agree with you.
None do.
WRONG! Impossible, since they weren't allowed to see the inside of the
body, where the PROOF was OBVIOUS, and they couldn't interview the
enlisted men who were part of the autopsy team, partly because they were
'ordered to silence'.
The review panels saw a lot more than you, have far more training than
you, far more experience than you, and far more knowledge than you. But
you think we should accept your conclusions over theirs. Too funny.
They heard much less than me, because they didn't have the ability to
interview or hear the full autopsy team.
They had the report of the competent people on the autopsy team. They
didn't need a couple techies in their early 20s to tell them what had
happened.
So you're saying that there were incompetent people on the autopsy team?
They certainly weren't competent to render judgements regarding the
medical evidence. Their level of competence was to perform tasks to assist
the people who were competent to make such judgements.
Post by mainframetechYou think you're qualified to decide who's competent medically? I think
not. give up your ego attempts.
You are the one deciding that techies in their early 20s were competent to
give expert opinions regarding the medical evidence. Good luck finding a
legal authority who agrees with you.
Post by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechOnly the ones ordered to lie.
You're being stupid again saying that *I* have conclusions in this. I got
conclusions from the prosectors and the autopsy team members, Not made up
by me. Though we're dealing here with simple physics that we're all
familiar with, other than you it seems.
No you didn't get your conclusions from the prosectors because they
rendered an opinion the polar opposite of yours. You got your opinions
from the recollections of a couple 20-something technicians and ignored
what the prosectors wrote in their report. Damn are you desperate to cling
to your sill beliefs.
WRONG! The prosectors rendered a conclusion early on in the autopsy,
and were proved right later.
No they didn't. Conclusions come a the end of a process, not at the
beginning.
Post by mainframetechThat they were ordered to lie in the AR has
no bearing on what they said while DURING the autopsy, since there was NO
meeting or agreement to change what they saw.
They were ordered to lie because their opinions aren't compatible with
what you want to believe so you had to dream up a reason for that and you
came up with imaginary orders for which their isn't a scintilla of
evidence.