Humes burning his notes

So you mean YOU can't figure it out. Some of us have.
Please don't be honest and say the word coverup.
Think of it as a minor correction. Like maybe he spotted a TYPO as you
often do. So he forgot to capitalize President or something.
Maybe he forgot the medical term for back.

Post by d***@gmail.com
I've often thought that Humes may have written the 1st draft BEFORE having
the telephone conversation with Dr. Perry (Parkland) and discovered (for

Well, he said he did. Don't you beliieve him?
Maybe the FBI told him that there is no such thing as an Ice Bullet.

Post by d***@gmail.com
the first time) that there was a bullet wound in the throat. The

Yes, even a klutz like YOU can SEE the throat wound. But then again you're
not a doctor. The original theory when they found out about it was that
the bullet hit the back of the head and exited the throat. Now aren't you
glad I'm here to show you things you never knew about before?

Loading Image...

This came out shortly after midnight.

Post by d***@gmail.com
conclusion that he reached during the autopsy was that the bullet didn't
transit and must have fallen out. It didn't seem to make a lot of sense

Someone told them it probably came out during heart massage.

Post by d***@gmail.com
but there was really no choice based on 1) there was no exit wound and 2)
x-rays indicated there was no embedded bullet.

With that type of ammo there will almost NEVER be en embedded bullet
except for at the end of 44 inches of Pondersosa Pine.

Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that conclusion was reflected in his first draft and then,
after the Perry conversation, it all became much clearer and made a lot

It was like a light blub went off in his head and he figured it out
without having to go back and dissecting and examining the wounds. And the
cover-up keeps telling us that we can only figure it out if we ourseles
examine the body. OK< let's examine the body.

Post by d***@gmail.com
more sense. He changed his conclusion. (NOTE: The changed conclusion was
something FBI agents Sibert & O'Neill were unaware of and explains why
their report mentions the conclusion they overheard while at the autopsy.)

Yes, I seriously doubt and no one has been able to ptove that it was the
2 FBI agents who INVENTED the Ice Bullet Theory (IBT).

Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that Humes may have been somewhat embarrassed about his 1st
conclusion. That may explain why he did elaborate as to what those

Ya think?
He was embarrassed by his incompetence.

Only in a real, legal autopsy. Not in a cover-up. When you know the victim
was killed by the Mayor's brother, you don't ask the attending physician
if any facts point to it being an inside job. That's not polite.

Post by d***@gmail.com
clothing of a shooting victim is often relevant. Humes never examined
Kennedy's shirt/tie. I'm not sure whether he even had access to them so it

So what? Leave that to the FBI.

Post by d***@gmail.com
may not have been his fault. But he could have, at least, inquired about
it. 3) He didn't track the wound. That seemed to be more in the interest

He was ORDERED not to examine the back wound.
You still don't dare to say the word cover-up.
Maybe you could be like Hosty and claim it was a "Benign" cover-up.
See if you can gather up your courage to do that.

Post by d***@gmail.com
of expediency (being pressured to hurry) and not protocol. 4) Finally, the
conclusion that a bullet fired from a rifle would only leave a shallow
wound in soft tissue - and fall out - seems quite unlikely on a common
sense level. I think Humes even realized that, which explains why it was

Common sense? Are you nuts?

Post by d***@gmail.com
so perplexing (to all three pathologists) during the actual autopsy.
Of course, this is when the CTs go crazy and scream "He didn't track the
wound!" or "He could only insert his pinkie a short distance into the
wound!"

No competent doctor just inserts his pinky.

Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN

David Von Pein

2018-07-11 13:32:45 UTC

Post by d***@gmail.com
I've often thought that Humes may have written the 1st draft BEFORE having
the telephone conversation with Dr. Perry (Parkland) and discovered (for

Well, he said he did. Don't you beliieve him?
Maybe the FBI told him that there is no such thing as an Ice Bullet.

Post by d***@gmail.com
the first time) that there was a bullet wound in the throat. The

Thanks for the 11/23/63 Boston Globe article, Tony.

It's interesting, indeed, to see that despite Dr. Perry's initial
guesswork about the throat wound being one of ENTRY, the media was (on
Sat., Nov. 23!) also theorizing about the throat wound being an EXIT wound
as well....

"The rather meager medical details attributed to Dr. Malcolm Perry, the
attending surgeon, described the bullet as entering just below the Adam's
Apple and leaving by the back of the head. Since that statement Friday
afternoon, it is believed from determining the site of the firing that the
bullet entered the back of the head first and came out just under the
Adam's Apple." -- Boston Globe; 11/23/63

Loading Image...

Post by d***@gmail.com
conclusion that he reached during the autopsy was that the bullet didn't
transit and must have fallen out. It didn't seem to make a lot of sense

Someone told them it probably came out during heart massage.

Post by d***@gmail.com
but there was really no choice based on 1) there was no exit wound and 2)
x-rays indicated there was no embedded bullet.

With that type of ammo there will almost NEVER be en embedded bullet
except for at the end of 44 inches of Pondersosa Pine.

Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that conclusion was reflected in his first draft and then,
after the Perry conversation, it all became much clearer and made a lot

Yes, I seriously doubt and no one has been able to ptove that it was the
2 FBI agents who INVENTED the Ice Bullet Theory (IBT).

Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that Humes may have been somewhat embarrassed about his 1st
conclusion. That may explain why he did elaborate as to what those

Ya think?
He was embarrassed by his incompetence.

Post by d***@gmail.com
clothing of a shooting victim is often relevant. Humes never examined
Kennedy's shirt/tie. I'm not sure whether he even had access to them so it

So what? Leave that to the FBI.

Post by d***@gmail.com
may not have been his fault. But he could have, at least, inquired about
it. 3) He didn't track the wound. That seemed to be more in the interest

Common sense? Are you nuts?

No competent doctor just inserts his pinky.

Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Anthony Marsh

2018-07-12 12:58:24 UTC

Post by d***@gmail.com
I've often thought that Humes may have written the 1st draft BEFORE having
the telephone conversation with Dr. Perry (Parkland) and discovered (for

Well, he said he did. Don't you beliieve him?
Maybe the FBI told him that there is no such thing as an Ice Bullet.

Post by d***@gmail.com
the first time) that there was a bullet wound in the throat. The

Could have been either. That's why they have autopsies and dissect to
SEE what it really is. What if the autopsy doctors had been the cutdowns
and thought they were stab wounds?

But Perry's first instinct on 11.22.63 was that it was an entrance wound
because it was so small and neat. What he didn't know is that the stiff
shirt collar helped keep the skin tight.
Did he even see the nick in the tie? No, he was only there to try to
save a life, not do an autopsy. I don't think it's legal to do an
autopsy on a person WHILE the person is still alive. I think they even
made a horror movie about that.
He also did not see the back wound because he had no reason to turn the
body over.

Post by David Von Pein
"The rather meager medical details attributed to Dr. Malcolm Perry, the
attending surgeon, described the bullet as entering just below the Adam's
Apple and leaving by the back of the head. Since that statement Friday

What about his statement on FRIDAY afternoon?

QUESTION-
Can???t we clear this up just a little more? In your estimation, was
there one or two wounds? Just give us something.
DR. MALCOM PERRY-
I don???t know. From the injury, it is conceivable that it could have
been caused by one wound, but there could have been two just as well if
the second bullet struck the head in addition to striking the neck, and
I cannot tell you that due to the nature of the wound. There is no way
for me to tell.
QUESTION-
Doctor, describe the entrance wound. You think from the front in
the throat?
DR. MALCOM PERRY-
The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the
throat; yes, that is correct. The exit wound, I don???t know. It could
have been the head or there could have been a second wound of the head.
There was not time to determine this at the particular instant.
QUESTION-
Would the bullet have to travel up from the neck wound to exit
through the back?
DR. MALCOM PERRY-
Unless it was deviated from its course by striking bone or some
other object.

It's a cute theory, but not very realistic that the bullet would be
deflected up by a vertebra. My God, what if that happened with the back
shot and the bullet was deflected up and out the throat?
It might miss hitting Governor Connally. Then you would need another
bullet or two just for Connally.

Post by David Von Pein
afternoon, it is believed from determining the site of the firing that the
bullet entered the back of the head first and came out just under the
Adam's Apple." -- Boston Globe; 11/23/63

The Globe knew things that the ER doctors did not know. They had better
sources, U can't tell you who, but try to figure out WHEN they were
writing that story and making the drawing in order to get it out onto the
streets by Saturday afternoon. How did they know the exact point of
entrance on the back of the head BELOW the EOP? Who told them that? Perry
didn't think that.

Post by David Von Pein
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-h5LGtiXhTGA/W0Uk7VDW26I/AAAAAAABPQ4/_eyn0AQOhAQLte-lmerJMZUfpCVyIPMPQCLcBGAs/s1600/The-Boston-Globe-11-23-63.jpg

Can you figure out where I found that by all the lines on the page? It is
in a microfiche collection of newspaper articles on the JFK assassination
in the Boston Public Library. The black lines are scratches in the glass
lens of that particular microfiche machine which could make Zerox copies.

Post by d***@gmail.com
conclusion that he reached during the autopsy was that the bullet didn't
transit and must have fallen out. It didn't seem to make a lot of sense

Someone told them it probably came out during heart massage.

Post by d***@gmail.com
but there was really no choice based on 1) there was no exit wound and 2)
x-rays indicated there was no embedded bullet.

With that type of ammo there will almost NEVER be en embedded bullet
except for at the end of 44 inches of Pondersosa Pine.

Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that conclusion was reflected in his first draft and then,
after the Perry conversation, it all became much clearer and made a lot

Yes, I seriously doubt and no one has been able to ptove that it was the
2 FBI agents who INVENTED the Ice Bullet Theory (IBT).

Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that Humes may have been somewhat embarrassed about his 1st
conclusion. That may explain why he did elaborate as to what those

Ya think?
He was embarrassed by his incompetence.

Post by d***@gmail.com
clothing of a shooting victim is often relevant. Humes never examined
Kennedy's shirt/tie. I'm not sure whether he even had access to them so it

So what? Leave that to the FBI.

Post by d***@gmail.com
may not have been his fault. But he could have, at least, inquired about
it. 3) He didn't track the wound. That seemed to be more in the interest

Common sense? Are you nuts?

No competent doctor just inserts his pinky.

Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN

mainframetech

2018-07-13 01:00:02 UTC

Post by d***@gmail.com
I've often thought that Humes may have written the 1st draft BEFORE having
the telephone conversation with Dr. Perry (Parkland) and discovered (for

Well, he said he did. Don't you beliieve him?
Maybe the FBI told him that there is no such thing as an Ice Bullet.

Post by d***@gmail.com
the first time) that there was a bullet wound in the throat. The

Thanks for the 11/23/63 Boston Globe article, Tony.
It's interesting, indeed, to see that despite Dr. Perry's initial
guesswork about the throat wound being one of ENTRY, the media was (on
Sat., Nov. 23!) also theorizing about the throat wound being an EXIT wound
as well....
"The rather meager medical details attributed to Dr. Malcolm Perry, the
attending surgeon, described the bullet as entering just below the Adam's
Apple and leaving by the back of the head. Since that statement Friday
afternoon, it is believed from determining the site of the firing that the
bullet entered the back of the head first and came out just under the
Adam's Apple." -- Boston Globe; 11/23/63
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-h5LGtiXhTGA/W0Uk7VDW26I/AAAAAAABPQ4/_eyn0AQOhAQLte-lmerJMZUfpCVyIPMPQCLcBGAs/s1600/The-Boston-Globe-11-23-63.jpg

The throat wound was NOT an EXIT. It was an entry as suggested by
Perry and Carrico, who said it might be either entry or exit. But the
final bit of information was seen during the autopsy, and later spoken
about by Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist on the autopsy team:

"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."

From: "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf

So the proof was in the body, which showed that no bullet left the body
of JFK through the throat wound, therefore the SBT is dead, and there was
a conspiracy.

Post by d***@gmail.com
conclusion that he reached during the autopsy was that the bullet didn't
transit and must have fallen out. It didn't seem to make a lot of sense

Someone told them it probably came out during heart massage.

Post by d***@gmail.com
but there was really no choice based on 1) there was no exit wound and 2)
x-rays indicated there was no embedded bullet.

With that type of ammo there will almost NEVER be en embedded bullet
except for at the end of 44 inches of Pondersosa Pine.

The LNs can sure go to extremes to avoid the simple facts. Consider
that the pathologists at Bethesda had orders to make it look like the
cause of death as from a bullet from above and behind. As well they would
be ordered to remove ALL bullets from the body, so that no other weapon
than the MC rifle would be proven to have also helped in the killing.
Tracheotomies are usually small, neat slits enough to get a tube into to
allow breathing. Yet the autopsy photos show a large messy gash at the
throat of JFK. I suggest to you that came from Humes and Boswell probing
around in the neck to find the bullet which probably hit the spine and
stopped there, so they could remove it.

Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that conclusion was reflected in his first draft and then,
after the Perry conversation, it all became much clearer and made a lot

Yes, I seriously doubt and no one has been able to ptove that it was the
2 FBI agents who INVENTED the Ice Bullet Theory (IBT).

OK, I'll prove it for you. In the ARRB testimony of James Sibert, FBI
agent, as follows:

"Can you tell me, was the phone call made
to Mr. Killion before or after the body was
unloaded from the casket?
A: Oh, that was after the body was removed it
was on the autopsy table, and the autopsy was in
progress. Because the reason I made that call was
that the pathologists said, ‘There’s no exit to
this back wound,” and probed it with rubber glove
and a chrome probe.
Q: okay.
A: So, that’s when I called and thought maybe
there was some type of bullet that would
disintegate. There just was no bullet that could
be located."

Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that Humes may have been somewhat embarrassed about his 1st
conclusion. That may explain why he did elaborate as to what those

Ya think?
He was embarrassed by his incompetence.

Post by d***@gmail.com
clothing of a shooting victim is often relevant. Humes never examined
Kennedy's shirt/tie. I'm not sure whether he even had access to them so it

So what? Leave that to the FBI.

Post by d***@gmail.com
may not have been his fault. But he could have, at least, inquired about
it. 3) He didn't track the wound. That seemed to be more in the interest

Common sense? Are you nuts?

Let's look into the sworn testimony of Jerrol Custer, X-ray
Technician:

"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."

Custer ARRB testimony, page 53

Sonometer = Centimeter

No competent doctor just inserts his pinky.

Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN

True, but Humes was not a very experienced pathologist.

Chris

Anthony Marsh

2018-07-13 18:37:47 UTC

Post by d***@gmail.com
I've often thought that Humes may have written the 1st draft BEFORE having
the telephone conversation with Dr. Perry (Parkland) and discovered (for

Well, he said he did. Don't you beliieve him?
Maybe the FBI told him that there is no such thing as an Ice Bullet.

Post by d***@gmail.com
the first time) that there was a bullet wound in the throat. The

Thanks for the 11/23/63 Boston Globe article, Tony.
It's interesting, indeed, to see that despite Dr. Perry's initial
guesswork about the throat wound being one of ENTRY, the media was (on
Sat., Nov. 23!) also theorizing about the throat wound being an EXIT wound
as well....
"The rather meager medical details attributed to Dr. Malcolm Perry, the
attending surgeon, described the bullet as entering just below the Adam's
Apple and leaving by the back of the head. Since that statement Friday
afternoon, it is believed from determining the site of the firing that the
bullet entered the back of the head first and came out just under the
Adam's Apple." -- Boston Globe; 11/23/63
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-h5LGtiXhTGA/W0Uk7VDW26I/AAAAAAABPQ4/_eyn0AQOhAQLte-lmerJMZUfpCVyIPMPQCLcBGAs/s1600/The-Boston-Globe-11-23-63.jpg

The throat wound was NOT an EXIT. It was an entry as suggested by
Perry and Carrico, who said it might be either entry or exit. But the

No, they were idiots and did notthing but GUESS.

Post by mainframetech
final bit of information was seen during the autopsy, and later spoken
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So the proof was in the body, which showed that no bullet left the body
of JFK through the throat wound, therefore the SBT is dead, and there was
a conspiracy.

You don't use a probe on a bullet wound. That's stupid.

Post by d***@gmail.com
conclusion that he reached during the autopsy was that the bullet didn't
transit and must have fallen out. It didn't seem to make a lot of sense

Someone told them it probably came out during heart massage.

Post by d***@gmail.com
but there was really no choice based on 1) there was no exit wound and 2)
x-rays indicated there was no embedded bullet.

With that type of ammo there will almost NEVER be en embedded bullet
except for at the end of 44 inches of Pondersosa Pine.

Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that conclusion was reflected in his first draft and then,
after the Perry conversation, it all became much clearer and made a lot

Yes, I seriously doubt and no one has been able to ptove that it was the
2 FBI agents who INVENTED the Ice Bullet Theory (IBT).

OK, I'll prove it for you. In the ARRB testimony of James Sibert, FBI
"Can you tell me, was the phone call made
to Mr. Killion before or after the body was
unloaded from the casket?
A: Oh, that was after the body was removed it
was on the autopsy table, and the autopsy was in
progress. Because the reason I made that call was
that the pathologists said, ‘There’s no exit to
this back wound,” and probed it with rubber glove
and a chrome probe.
Q: okay.
A: So, that’s when I called and thought maybe
there was some type of bullet that would
disintegate. There just was no bullet that could
be located."

Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that Humes may have been somewhat embarrassed about his 1st
conclusion. That may explain why he did elaborate as to what those

Ya think?
He was embarrassed by his incompetence.

Post by d***@gmail.com
clothing of a shooting victim is often relevant. Humes never examined
Kennedy's shirt/tie. I'm not sure whether he even had access to them so it

So what? Leave that to the FBI.

Post by d***@gmail.com
may not have been his fault. But he could have, at least, inquired about
it. 3) He didn't track the wound. That seemed to be more in the interest

Common sense? Are you nuts?

Let's look into the sworn testimony of Jerrol Custer, X-ray
"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."
Custer ARRB testimony, page 53
Sonometer = Centimeter

No, let's not keep repeating the same stupid story 1,000 times and
saying tha merely repeating it makes it true.

No competent doctor just inserts his pinky.

Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN

True, but Humes was not a very experienced pathologist.

He was a paper pusher.

Post by mainframetech
Chris

bigdog

2018-07-14 03:49:36 UTC

Post by d***@gmail.com
I've often thought that Humes may have written the 1st draft BEFORE having
the telephone conversation with Dr. Perry (Parkland) and discovered (for

Well, he said he did. Don't you beliieve him?
Maybe the FBI told him that there is no such thing as an Ice Bullet.

Post by d***@gmail.com
the first time) that there was a bullet wound in the throat. The

Thanks for the 11/23/63 Boston Globe article, Tony.
It's interesting, indeed, to see that despite Dr. Perry's initial
guesswork about the throat wound being one of ENTRY, the media was (on
Sat., Nov. 23!) also theorizing about the throat wound being an EXIT wound
as well....
"The rather meager medical details attributed to Dr. Malcolm Perry, the
attending surgeon, described the bullet as entering just below the Adam's
Apple and leaving by the back of the head. Since that statement Friday
afternoon, it is believed from determining the site of the firing that the
bullet entered the back of the head first and came out just under the
Adam's Apple." -- Boston Globe; 11/23/63
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-h5LGtiXhTGA/W0Uk7VDW26I/AAAAAAABPQ4/_eyn0AQOhAQLte-lmerJMZUfpCVyIPMPQCLcBGAs/s1600/The-Boston-Globe-11-23-63.jpg

A few days ago you chastised me for playing fingerprint technician and
here you are playing medical examiner. You reject what every competent
medical examiner has concluded and instead substitute your analysis which
is based on sketchy information and a very limited number of photos and
x-rays.

Post by mainframetech
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf

Connors account of what the autopsy show is in direct conflict with the
findings by three far more qualified pathologists. So why would you give
more credibility to him than you do to them?

Post by mainframetech
So the proof was in the body, which showed that no bullet left the body
of JFK through the throat wound, therefore the SBT is dead, and there was
a conspiracy.

Poor information leads to poor conclusions.

Post by d***@gmail.com
conclusion that he reached during the autopsy was that the bullet didn't
transit and must have fallen out. It didn't seem to make a lot of sense

Someone told them it probably came out during heart massage.

Post by d***@gmail.com
but there was really no choice based on 1) there was no exit wound and 2)
x-rays indicated there was no embedded bullet.

With that type of ammo there will almost NEVER be en embedded bullet
except for at the end of 44 inches of Pondersosa Pine.

The LNs can sure go to extremes to avoid the simple facts. Consider
that the pathologists at Bethesda had orders to make it look like the
cause of death as from a bullet from above and behind.

There were no such orders. You simply assume that because the findings of
the pathologists conflict with what you would rather believe so you are
forced to invent an excuse for that inconvenient fact so you fabricate
this story about orders for which there is no evidence.

Post by mainframetech
As well they would
be ordered to remove ALL bullets from the body, so that no other weapon
than the MC rifle would be proven to have also helped in the killing.

Another fabrication.

Post by mainframetech
Tracheotomies are usually small, neat slits enough to get a tube into to
allow breathing. Yet the autopsy photos show a large messy gash at the
throat of JFK.

I suppose you think a wound would remain a narrow slit despite lots of
fluids draining from the body in the hours from when the incision was made
until the photo was taken. It is preposterous to think they would try to
dig out a bullet that entered the throat from the front since it would
penetrate so deeply. In fact even a medium powered bullet would have
exited the back of the neck. From your proposed location on the SoGK and
the 15 degree angle of attack, it would exit from the back right of the
neck if JFK were facing straight ahead. In the last view we had of him
before the bullet struck he was turned slightly to his right which would
make for an even sharper angle of entry and an exit out the right side of
his neck. Really basic geometry.

Post by mainframetech
I suggest to you that came from Humes and Boswell probing
around in the neck to find the bullet which probably hit the spine and
stopped there, so they could remove it.

Had that happened, JFK would have been paralyzed and unable to lift his
arms. This is what happened to MLK and that bullet went through his
jawbone, not the soft tissue of his throat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Martin_Luther_King_Jr.

"King had gone out onto the balcony and was standing near his room when he
was struck at 6:01 p.m. by a single .30-06 bullet fired from a Remington
Model 760 rifle.[13] The bullet entered through King's right cheek,
breaking his jaw and several vertebrae as it traveled down his spinal
cord, severing his jugular vein and major arteries in the process, before
lodging in his shoulder. The force of the shot ripped King's necktie off.
King fell violently backward onto the balcony, unconscious."

Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that conclusion was reflected in his first draft and then,
after the Perry conversation, it all became much clearer and made a lot

Yes, I seriously doubt and no one has been able to ptove that it was the
2 FBI agents who INVENTED the Ice Bullet Theory (IBT).

A judgement made in ignorance of the fact that the exit wound had been
obliterated by the tracheostomy incision. Once it was discovered that a
tracheostomy incision had been made over a bullet hole, the mystery was
cleared up. They had their exit wound and dismissed the more bizarre ideas
that had been floated.

Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that Humes may have been somewhat embarrassed about his 1st
conclusion. That may explain why he did elaborate as to what those

Ya think?
He was embarrassed by his incompetence.

Post by d***@gmail.com
clothing of a shooting victim is often relevant. Humes never examined
Kennedy's shirt/tie. I'm not sure whether he even had access to them so it

So what? Leave that to the FBI.

Post by d***@gmail.com
may not have been his fault. But he could have, at least, inquired about
it. 3) He didn't track the wound. That seemed to be more in the interest

Common sense? Are you nuts?

Why do you keep saying Sonometer = Centimeter. They aren't even related.
Anyone who used one term in place of the other is clueless. Custer is the
only person in the room who claimed a bullet fell out of JFK's back and
was quickly scooped up by Finck. The FBI agents didn't report that nor did
the pathologists or the other technicians. The body was on a metal table
and a bullet dropping out would have made a clank which would have been
easily audible.

No competent doctor just inserts his pinky.

Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN

True, but Humes was not a very experienced pathologist.

He was a very experienced pathologist. Unfortunately he was not
experienced in gun shot autopsies nor were Boswell or any of the
technicians. Finck was the one member of the team who had such experience.

Anthony Marsh

2018-07-14 23:47:17 UTC

Post by d***@gmail.com
I've often thought that Humes may have written the 1st draft BEFORE having
the telephone conversation with Dr. Perry (Parkland) and discovered (for

Well, he said he did. Don't you beliieve him?
Maybe the FBI told him that there is no such thing as an Ice Bullet.

Post by d***@gmail.com
the first time) that there was a bullet wound in the throat. The

Thanks for the 11/23/63 Boston Globe article, Tony.
It's interesting, indeed, to see that despite Dr. Perry's initial
guesswork about the throat wound being one of ENTRY, the media was (on
Sat., Nov. 23!) also theorizing about the throat wound being an EXIT wound
as well....
"The rather meager medical details attributed to Dr. Malcolm Perry, the
attending surgeon, described the bullet as entering just below the Adam's
Apple and leaving by the back of the head. Since that statement Friday
afternoon, it is believed from determining the site of the firing that the
bullet entered the back of the head first and came out just under the
Adam's Apple." -- Boston Globe; 11/23/63
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-h5LGtiXhTGA/W0Uk7VDW26I/AAAAAAABPQ4/_eyn0AQOhAQLte-lmerJMZUfpCVyIPMPQCLcBGAs/s1600/The-Boston-Globe-11-23-63.jpg

They do not all agree. Only a couple of them said ice bullet.

Post by mainframetech
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles???the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf

Connors account of what the autopsy show is in direct conflict with the
findings by three far more qualified pathologists. So why would you give
more credibility to him than you do to them?

So you cherrypick the witnesses you like.

Post by mainframetech
So the proof was in the body, which showed that no bullet left the body
of JFK through the throat wound, therefore the SBT is dead, and there was
a conspiracy.

Poor information leads to poor conclusions.

Post by d***@gmail.com
conclusion that he reached during the autopsy was that the bullet didn't
transit and must have fallen out. It didn't seem to make a lot of sense

Someone told them it probably came out during heart massage.

Post by d***@gmail.com
but there was really no choice based on 1) there was no exit wound and 2)
x-rays indicated there was no embedded bullet.

With that type of ammo there will almost NEVER be en embedded bullet
except for at the end of 44 inches of Pondersosa Pine.

The LNs can sure go to extremes to avoid the simple facts. Consider
that the pathologists at Bethesda had orders to make it look like the
cause of death as from a bullet from above and behind.

Post by mainframetech
As well they would
be ordered to remove ALL bullets from the body, so that no other weapon
than the MC rifle would be proven to have also helped in the killing.

Another fabrication.

Post by mainframetech
Tracheotomies are usually small, neat slits enough to get a tube into to
allow breathing. Yet the autopsy photos show a large messy gash at the
throat of JFK.

So now you're trying to play forensic pathologist. You know nothing about
bullet wounds. lots of fluids did not drain out of the hole in the neck.
And nothing like that would cause the wound to become so much bigger. If
your theory were true then the back wound would have been an inch wide.
It's nonsense.They had to EXPAND the hole to put the tube in. Then during
handling it got bigger.

Post by bigdog
dig out a bullet that entered the throat from the front since it would
penetrate so deeply. In fact even a medium powered bullet would have

He is imagining a bullet which does not penetrate deeply.

Post by bigdog
exited the back of the neck. From your proposed location on the SoGK and
the 15 degree angle of attack, it would exit from the back right of the
neck if JFK were facing straight ahead. In the last view we had of him
before the bullet struck he was turned slightly to his right which would
make for an even sharper angle of entry and an exit out the right side of
his neck. Really basic geometry.

You can't just ASSuME that it had to exit.
A bullet or fragment hit Connally's thigh and it did not exit.
I'll go out on a limb and conjecture that it had to come from behind
considering how Connally was seated and the door and windshield would
block a shot from the front.

Post by mainframetech
I suggest to you that came from Humes and Boswell probing
around in the neck to find the bullet which probably hit the spine and
stopped there, so they could remove it.

Had that happened, JFK would have been paralyzed and unable to lift his
arms. This is what happened to MLK and that bullet went through his
jawbone, not the soft tissue of his throat.

Depends on where it hit. Which vertebra.
We know a bullet hit the T-1 vertebra. It had a hairline fracture. That
would excite the C8 nerve, causing his arms to go up.

Post by bigdog
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Martin_Luther_King_Jr.
"King had gone out onto the balcony and was standing near his room when he
was struck at 6:01 p.m. by a single .30-06 bullet fired from a Remington
Model 760 rifle.[13] The bullet entered through King's right cheek,
breaking his jaw and several vertebrae as it traveled down his spinal
cord, severing his jugular vein and major arteries in the process, before
lodging in his shoulder. The force of the shot ripped King's necktie off.
King fell violently backward onto the balcony, unconscious."

Yes, so you now have to admit that a bullet's path can be changed by
hitting the spine.

So, how could the impact of the bullet from the front cause him to go
backward violently? You said that was impossible in the JFK case. Every
time you open your mouth you prove how hypocritical you are. You don't
care about facts. Only your bias.

Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that conclusion was reflected in his first draft and then,
after the Perry conversation, it all became much clearer and made a lot

Yes, I seriously doubt and no one has been able to ptove that it was the
2 FBI agents who INVENTED the Ice Bullet Theory (IBT).

OK, I'll prove it for you. In the ARRB testimony of James Sibert, FBI
"Can you tell me, was the phone call made
to Mr. Killion before or after the body was
unloaded from the casket?
A: Oh, that was after the body was removed it
was on the autopsy table, and the autopsy was in
progress. Because the reason I made that call was
that the pathologists said, ???There???s no exit to
this back wound,??? and probed it with rubber glove
and a chrome probe.
Q: okay.
A: So, that???s when I called and thought maybe
there was some type of bullet that would
disintegate. There just was no bullet that could
be located."

Sure, but how come all the forensic pathologists can see it?
How come even YOU can see it?

Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that Humes may have been somewhat embarrassed about his 1st
conclusion. That may explain why he did elaborate as to what those

Ya think?
He was embarrassed by his incompetence.

Post by d***@gmail.com
clothing of a shooting victim is often relevant. Humes never examined
Kennedy's shirt/tie. I'm not sure whether he even had access to them so it

So what? Leave that to the FBI.

Post by d***@gmail.com
may not have been his fault. But he could have, at least, inquired about
it. 3) He didn't track the wound. That seemed to be more in the interest

Common sense? Are you nuts?

Let's look into the sworn testimony of Jerrol Custer, X-ray
"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."
Custer ARRB testimony, page 53
Sonometer = Centimeter

No competent doctor just inserts his pinky.

Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN

True, but Humes was not a very experienced pathologist.

He was a very experienced pathologist. Unfortunately he was not

No, that is not true. Stop saying things that you KNOW are not true.

Post by bigdog
experienced in gun shot autopsies nor were Boswell or any of the
technicians. Finck was the one member of the team who had such experience.

But Finck was ordered NOT to examine the wound.
Cui bono?

d***@gmail.com

2018-07-18 22:16:52 UTC

Post by Anthony Marsh
But Finck was ordered NOT to examine the wound.

Dr. Pierre Finck's testimony in the Clay Shaw trial:

Q: Now, can you give me the name then of the General that was in charge of
the autopsy, as you testified about?

A: Well, there was no General in charge of the autopsy. There were several
people, as I have stated before, I heard Dr. Humes state who was in charge
here, and he stated that the General answered "I am," it may have been
pertaining to operations other than the autopsy, it does not mean the Army
General was in charge of the autopsy, but when Dr. Humes asked who was in
charge here, it may have been who was in charge of the operations, but not
of the autopsy, and by "operations," I mean the over-all supervision.

* * *

He clarified an earlier statement he made about how some General claimed
to "in charge" - the comment that almost all CTs cite but never cite the
above clarification. Finck makes it clear that no General/Admiral was
ordering them HOW to conduct the autopsy.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Anthony Marsh

2018-07-19 21:35:55 UTC

Post by Anthony Marsh
But Finck was ordered NOT to examine the wound.

Q: Now, can you give me the name then of the General that was in charge of
the autopsy, as you testified about?
A: Well, there was no General in charge of the autopsy. There were several
people, as I have stated before, I heard Dr. Humes state who was in charge
here, and he stated that the General answered "I am," it may have been
pertaining to operations other than the autopsy, it does not mean the Army
General was in charge of the autopsy, but when Dr. Humes asked who was in
charge here, it may have been who was in charge of the operations, but not
of the autopsy, and by "operations," I mean the over-all supervision.
* * *
He clarified an earlier statement he made about how some General claimed
to "in charge" - the comment that almost all CTs cite but never cite the
above clarification. Finck makes it clear that no General/Admiral was
ordering them HOW to conduct the autopsy.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN

I have posted the same thing thousands of times, but consider this
question in your mind:

Did Finck understand thew difference between an ARMY General and a Navy
General? So when he said General he means Army General.

Who there was an Army General and had the authority to order him?
He was ordered by The Commander of the base, Stoval to OBEY the orders
from the unnameble Army General as though they had come from Stoval himself.

The silliest explanation I have ever heard from the cover is when some
kook said he mean General as in Attorney General, which would be Robert
Kennedy, not knowing that the Kennedys were up in a room above the
autopsy and never went down into the autopsy suite.

By Chelsea Brasted

***@nola.com,

NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune

Two men waited in a parked sedan outside Steinberg's Sports Center in
Baton Rouge when Richard Lipsey got to work Jan 18, 1978. It had been a
little more than 15 years since John F. Kennedy was assassinated in
Dallas -- 15 years since Lipsey signed National Security Act documents
swearing he wouldn't talk about what he'd witnessed that day.

The two men got out of the car wearing smart business suits and
approached Lipsey.

"Are you Richard Lipsey? Were you a lieutenant in the U.S. Army in 1963?
And were you in Washington? And did you watch the autopsy of John F.
Kennedy?"

Yes, yes, yes and yes.

The men, who came on behalf of the House Select Committee on
Assassinations, followed Lipsey inside, where for the first time he
recounted exactly how he'd heard the news that the president was shot,
how he'd spent the afternoon preparing for the arrival of the body, how
he'd helped the medical technicians at Bethesda Navy Hospital wipe it
down and how, exactly, he'd stood alongside Jackie Kennedy and a select
group of weary, grieving White House aides during a private 4:30 a.m.
mass the next morning.

It was the first time Lipsey had really thought about what happened that
day. He knew he couldn't talk about it, so not thinking about it seemed
an easy option.

"They really caught me cold," Lipsey said. "It was very difficult at the
time to go through that again with them and try to identify exactly what
they wanted, and they were kind of leading me on."

The recounting opened a kind of Pandora's box inside Lipsey. It was the
spark to ignite his own desire to figure out exactly what happened that
day. Was it Lee Harvey Oswald who shot Kennedy? And if it was, did he
act alone?

It was just after his usual lunch break on Nov. 22, 1963. Lipsey sat in
a car parked outside Maj. Gen. Philip C. Wehle's house when the news
came over the radio that Kennedy had been shot. Lipsey ran to the door,
where Wehle met him on the way out. They'd heard the same news, and they
both had snapped into action.

It was time to go to work.

As aide to Wehle, the commander of the military district of Washington,
D.C., Lipsey had a front row seat to a tumultuous time, including Martin
Luther King Jr.'s historic march just months earlier. Lipsey knew that
at any minute Wehle could be called upon to escort a high ranking
dignitary to meet the president, or he might have to help plan the
funeral for former aging presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower or Harry
Truman. But this was different.

Lipsey had served as sometimes-social aide to Kennedy, had shaken his
hand numerous times after briefing Kennedy on various visitors, and the
pair had developed a friendship.

"He was a hell of a guy. A very smart man," Lipsey said.

When Kennedy's body arrived around 6:30 p.m., he accompanied Wehle and
Jackie Kennedy to Bethesda Naval Hospital. Wehle and a stoic Jackie
Kennedy went upstairs to begin the gargantuan task of planning a
presidential funeral, and Lipsey was given the task of guarding the door.

"Nobody touches that body except the doctors, and no unauthorized person
enters that room," Lipsey remembered Wehle saying.

Lipsey helped the technicians when he was asked, helping to transfer
Kennedy's body to the autopsy table, wiping it off and watching the
calm, slow process of photographing the entry and exit points of the
bullets. Sometime that night, Lipsey chowed down on a burger and Coke
while watching the autopsy from the student's gallery above. Later,
Lipsey would help to dress Kennedy in the suit his wife had chosen
before closing the casket.

The body was moved to the White House in the dead of night, and Lipsey
sat in on the private mass a priest gave before dawn. Jackie Kennedy
asked everyone out of the room, and though he never knew what happened
then, Lipsey is fairly certain he was one of the last people to ever see
Kennedy's body before his burial.

The following days were a torrent of planning, securing and organizing
the funeral procession. He stood next to Wehle and the Kennedy family as
they made their slow walk to the Capitol from the White House. He later
led Princess Grace Kelly to the grave-site, not understanding why Jackie
Kennedy wouldn't see her.

There are many things Lipsey doesn't understand that day, and he doesn't
suppose he'll ever figure them out. What he does know -- and he's
certain of this -- is that it was Lee Harvey Oswald who pulled the trigger.

After delving into the mist in 1978, Lipsey slowly learned more and more
about what happened that day. He remembered hearing the Boston accent of
an FBI agent who'd been outside the autopsy, found him and read through
the agent's report.

"The more I started thinking about it, the more I was able to put the
picture together myself," Lipsey said.

He read the conspiracy theories, he looked at the photographs, he
watched the Oliver Stone movie and he read the books. It all comes down
to one thing: He's certain Lee Harvey Oswald did it.

"This guy was a nut, and he was going to show everybody," Lipsey said.
"Everybody thought he was nuts, but he was going to show everybody that
he can pull off the big one. ... Everybody has a theory about who put
him up to it. Maybe they did? But there's just no evidence that ties him
to any particular group."

Lipsey estimates he has told his story about a dozen times, but only to
select groups, ones he feels a certain connection to. He won't go on
national TV, though he has been asked often, and he won't speak to just
anyone. He prefers to avoid the spotlight, but he acknowledges the
importance of passing his story down to new generations.

In recalling the story, Lipsey doesn't feel any acute sadness or
catharsis. Instead, he recognizes how lucky he was to have known Wehle,
the major general who pulled him out of the group at what was then-Camp
Polk, brought him to Washington, D.C., and mentored him.

"It makes me step back and think about how much I appreciated Gen.
Wehle," Lipsey said.

As for the day Lipsey stood witness to one of the saddest and most
portentous moments in American history, he looks back on it with equanimity.

"It doesn't overwhelm me," Lipsey said.

* * * * * *

Chelsea Brasted is an entertainment reporter based in Baton Rouge. Email
her at ***@nola.com or call 225.460.1350. You can also keep up with
all her local updates on Twitter (@cabrasted) and through NOLA.com Baton
Rouge on Facebook.

Doesn't this kinda, sorta narrow it down to General Wehle who WAS in
control of the loading dock?
Why he would supervise the autopsy is strange, but you could make up a
conspiracy theory that RFK asked him to watch out for the interests of
the Kennedy family. And why just for the autopsy procedures?
Because during an autopsy they have to remove and examine the organs.
And the Kennedy family did not want the adrenal glands examined, because
that would prove that JFK had been suffering from Addison's Disease
which they had continually been denying, ever since the convention
running against LBJ, whom RFK hated, and rightly so.
This is what we call a CYA cover-up. It doesn't change any facts about
who shot whom, but it protects the privacy of the family.
As an example, sometimes the coroner is asked by the family to not
mention that the loved one had died of AIDS.
I am not going to cite any examples to prove that, but if you are
resourceful you can find them.
Hope this explains it for you. And don't ask me how I know that RFK
asked them to cover up the Addison's Disease. Can you figure out where I
am posting from?

John McAdams

2018-07-19 21:39:10 UTC

On 19 Jul 2018 17:35:55 -0400, Anthony Marsh

Post by Anthony Marsh
But Finck was ordered NOT to examine the wound.

I have posted the same thing thousands of times, but consider this
Did Finck understand thew difference between an ARMY General and a Navy
General? So when he said General he means Army General.
Who there was an Army General and had the authority to order him?
He was ordered by The Commander of the base, Stoval to OBEY the orders
from the unnameble Army General as though they had come from Stoval himself.

Interesting that buffs obsess on the New Orleans trial testimony, when
there is copious evidence from both Manchester and the HSCA
interviews.

It was Adm. George Burkley who was (correctly) assumed to represent
"the family" and who was hurrying things up.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

d***@gmail.com

2018-07-20 16:33:56 UTC

Post by John McAdams
Interesting that buffs obsess on the New Orleans trial testimony, when
there is copious evidence from both Manchester and the HSCA
interviews.
It was Adm. George Burkley who was (correctly) assumed to represent
"the family" and who was hurrying things up.
.John

Exactly!

There are actually three points of authority conflict that occurred at
Bethesda.

First, there was the encounter outside the morgue when the body was
arriving. Humes noticed a gentleman with a camera and, knowing he
shouldn't be there, asked "Who's in charge?" - meaning, "Who is in charge
of this operation such that a rogue photographer is permitted to be
roaming around?" It had nothing to do with the autopsy. Humes received an
answer from General Philip C. Wehle, "I am!". General Wehle never even
entered the morgue and was not on the FBI list of those who were inside
morgue during the autopsy.

Then there was some confusion at the early stages as to the extent of the
autopsy. In all likelihood, Humes felt pressure from the very beginning.
"Just how long is this going to take? Hurry up! We know how the president
died. There's no need to hack him to pieces. The family is waiting." (my
words, of course)

Humes had to consult with his boss, Admiral Calvin B. Galloway, regarding
what KIND of autopsy was to be done - a partial or full? Admiral Galloway
authorized a FULL autopsy.

Yet, despite the authorization to conduct a full autopsy, the pressure
persisted throughout the procedure with frequent phone calls come from the
17th floor. "How much longer?" Much of this pressure was probably coming
from both Admiral George Burkley and General Godfrey McHugh. My guess is
that Humes finally gave in to some of this pressure and didn't perform
some time consuming procedures. Tracking the back/neck wound would have
been time consuming and, at the time, seemed somewhat pointless since they
already knew where the entry wound was ... they also "knew" that there was
no exit wound ... they also knew no bullet was embedded ... and they had
received word that a bullet was recovered at Parkland. So, what else could
Humes conclude at this point OTHER than the bullet did not transit and,
somehow, fell out through its point of entry? They hypothesized that this
might have occurred during attempts at cardiac resuscitation (which was
never performed).

It was puzzling because, on its face, that seems like a very unlikely
occurrence which is why Humes quickly changed his mind when a far more
plausible explanation presented itself once he discovered about the throat
wound the following day during his phone conversation with Dr. Perry - a
conversation that SHOULD have occurred BEFORE the autopsy even began - a
mistake to which Humes readily admitted.

John, you mention the buffs' obsession with the New Orleans testimony of
Dr. Finck, but they cherry-pick that testimony and almost always leave out
his clarification on the who-is-in-charge thing, stating that it had
nothing to do with the conduct of autopsy.

Tony suggests that Finck might have not been able to distinguish between
an Army General and Navy "General". Pierre Finck was a Colonel and
certainly had enough experience in the military to know the difference.
Finck, himself, was only one rank below Brigadier General at the time. The
Navy doesn't have Generals - they have Admirals. The Marine Corps, which
operates under the Department of the Navy, has Generals, however. Either
way, what difference does any of that make? The point is that nobody - no
General or Admiral - was ordering the conduct of the autopsy - certainly
not in the manner as most conspiracy theorists see it. Yet, there can be
little doubt that Humes didn't feel pressure to finish sooner rather than
later.

It wasn't a perfect autopsy but it was good enough. Even Dr. Earl Rose,
the Parkland doctor who would have done the autopsy had Kennedy's body
remained in Dallas and who served on the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel,
agreed with the fundamental conclusions of the Bethesda autopsy.

In fact, in 1978, Vincent Bugliosi asked Dr. Earl Rose (now retired),
"Were you satisfied from your review of the autopsy photos and x-rays that
the autopsy surgeons reached the same conclusion you would have reached if
you had conducted the autopsy back in 1963 in Dallas?"

Dr. Earl Rose: "Yes, there’s no question their conclusions were
correct. Two shots entered the president from behind, the entrance wound
to the back exiting in the throat at the site of the tracheotomy and the
entrance wound to the back of the head exiting in the right frontal
temporal area."

Rose had some minor criticisms, but he still agreed with the fundamental
conclusions. He said some of the wound locations are poorly described.
Rose also said that the three pathologists were not inept as if often
mentioned and that they were quite competent.

Rose went on to say that "You can’t blame the autopsy surgeons for
the fact that the autopsy should have been more complete ... considering
they were operating under the most trying, tremendously difficult
circumstances."

SIDENOTE: Back in 1978, while attending the United States Naval Academy in
Annapolis, MD, I actually got the opportunity to speak briefly (over the
phone) with Dr. James Humes (retired). I was doing a report for a
Political Science course I was taking called "Investigative Research",
although my major was Aerospace Engineering. [I admit, I took the class
mostly because there was no classroom attendance required and that my
grade was 100% based on the quality of the end-of-semester presentation.
It was part research, part public speaking and part developing a formal
presentation. The Kennedy assassination was very topical at the time
because of the HSCA which seemed to be in the Washington Post and
Baltimore Sun on a daily basis. I got to attend a couple public sessions
of the HSCA, an opportunity mostly afforded due to the proximity of
Annapolis to Washington, D.C. and my being an active duty military member.
I was there the day Louie Steven Witt was questioned, the beginning of the
first semester of my senior year, I believe. It was comical when the
umbrella was opened.] I think Humes only talked to me (i.e tolerated me)
was because I was a Navy midshipman. He struck me as a somewhat bitter man
due to the many criticisms of him over the years - everything from being a
total incompetent to being PART of the plot to cover-up the truth of the
assassination. He struck me as a scarred individual. When I read his ARRB
testimony, I can "hear" a lot of that same bitterness, anger and sarcasm.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

John McAdams

2018-07-20 16:50:13 UTC

When buffs quote the Finck New Orleans testimony, they never mention
Finck saying "the family."

Finck's impression was that "the family" was authorizing or not
authorizing stuff.

Not exactly true, but it was true that Burkley was accepted as
representing "the family," and conveying pressure to finish up.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Humes had to consult with his boss, Admiral Calvin B. Galloway, regarding
what KIND of autopsy was to be done - a partial or full? Admiral Galloway
authorized a FULL autopsy.
Yet, despite the authorization to conduct a full autopsy, the pressure
persisted throughout the procedure with frequent phone calls come from the
17th floor. "How much longer?" Much of this pressure was probably coming
from both Admiral George Burkley and General Godfrey McHugh. My guess is
that Humes finally gave in to some of this pressure and didn't perform
some time consuming procedures. Tracking the back/neck wound would have
been time consuming and, at the time, seemed somewhat pointless since they
already knew where the entry wound was ... they also "knew" that there was
no exit wound ... they also knew no bullet was embedded ... and they had
received word that a bullet was recovered at Parkland. So, what else could
Humes conclude at this point OTHER than the bullet did not transit and,
somehow, fell out through its point of entry? They hypothesized that this
might have occurred during attempts at cardiac resuscitation (which was
never performed).
It was puzzling because, on its face, that seems like a very unlikely
occurrence which is why Humes quickly changed his mind when a far more
plausible explanation presented itself once he discovered about the throat
wound the following day during his phone conversation with Dr. Perry - a
conversation that SHOULD have occurred BEFORE the autopsy even began - a
mistake to which Humes readily admitted.

Although in the chaotic atmosphere that doubtless prevailed at
Bethesda (and all of official Washington, actually) that's
understandable.

Post by d***@gmail.com
John, you mention the buffs' obsession with the New Orleans testimony of
Dr. Finck, but they cherry-pick that testimony and almost always leave out
his clarification on the who-is-in-charge thing, stating that it had
nothing to do with the conduct of autopsy.
Tony suggests that Finck might have not been able to distinguish between
an Army General and Navy "General". Pierre Finck was a Colonel and
certainly had enough experience in the military to know the difference.
Finck, himself, was only one rank below Brigadier General at the time. The
Navy doesn't have Generals - they have Admirals. The Marine Corps, which
operates under the Department of the Navy, has Generals, however. Either
way, what difference does any of that make? The point is that nobody - no
General or Admiral - was ordering the conduct of the autopsy - certainly
not in the manner as most conspiracy theorists see it. Yet, there can be
little doubt that Humes didn't feel pressure to finish sooner rather than
later.
It wasn't a perfect autopsy but it was good enough. Even Dr. Earl Rose,
the Parkland doctor who would have done the autopsy had Kennedy's body
remained in Dallas and who served on the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel,
agreed with the fundamental conclusions of the Bethesda autopsy.
In fact, in 1978, Vincent Bugliosi asked Dr. Earl Rose (now retired),
"Were you satisfied from your review of the autopsy photos and x-rays that
the autopsy surgeons reached the same conclusion you would have reached if
you had conducted the autopsy back in 1963 in Dallas?"

But there was that embarrassing four inch error about the entry defect
in the skull.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Dr. Earl Rose: "Yes, theres no question their conclusions were
correct. Two shots entered the president from behind, the entrance wound
to the back exiting in the throat at the site of the tracheotomy and the
entrance wound to the back of the head exiting in the right frontal
temporal area."
Rose had some minor criticisms, but he still agreed with the fundamental
conclusions. He said some of the wound locations are poorly described.
Rose also said that the three pathologists were not inept as if often
mentioned and that they were quite competent.
Rose went on to say that "You cant blame the autopsy surgeons for
the fact that the autopsy should have been more complete ... considering
they were operating under the most trying, tremendously difficult
circumstances."
SIDENOTE: Back in 1978, while attending the United States Naval Academy in
Annapolis, MD, I actually got the opportunity to speak briefly (over the
phone) with Dr. James Humes (retired). I was doing a report for a
Political Science course I was taking called "Investigative Research",
although my major was Aerospace Engineering. [I admit, I took the class
mostly because there was no classroom attendance required and that my
grade was 100% based on the quality of the end-of-semester presentation.
It was part research, part public speaking and part developing a formal
presentation. The Kennedy assassination was very topical at the time
because of the HSCA which seemed to be in the Washington Post and
Baltimore Sun on a daily basis. I got to attend a couple public sessions
of the HSCA, an opportunity mostly afforded due to the proximity of
Annapolis to Washington, D.C. and my being an active duty military member.
I was there the day Louie Steven Witt was questioned, the beginning of the
first semester of my senior year, I believe. It was comical when the
umbrella was opened.] I think Humes only talked to me (i.e tolerated me)
was because I was a Navy midshipman. He struck me as a somewhat bitter man
due to the many criticisms of him over the years - everything from being a
total incompetent to being PART of the plot to cover-up the truth of the
assassination. He struck me as a scarred individual. When I read his ARRB
testimony, I can "hear" a lot of that same bitterness, anger and sarcasm.

The HSCA really gave him a going over, getting him to admit an error
about the entry defect in the skull.

Then, in the 90s, he went back to claiming his mistaken EOP area
entry.

I do sympathize with him.

It's like: the President is stricken with an aneurysm, and rushed to
a military hospital, and some General orders an orthopedic surgeon
(rather than a vascular surgeon) to save him. The president dies and
the poor surgeon is blamed for the rest of his life.

That would be Humes.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Anthony Marsh

2018-07-22 01:43:45 UTC

When buffs quote the Finck New Orleans testimony, they never mention
Finck saying "the family."
Finck's impression was that "the family" was authorizing or not
authorizing stuff.
Not exactly true, but it was true that Burkley was accepted as
representing "the family," and conveying pressure to finish up.

Silly. The family was not there in the autopsy room to SEE them start to
dissect the back wound and tell them to stop immediately.

It was an Army General. Jackie was not an Army General. RFK was not an
Army General. Caroline was not an Army General. John-John was not an Army
General.

Although in the chaotic atmosphere that doubtless prevailed at
Bethesda (and all of official Washington, actually) that's
understandable.

But there was that embarrassing four inch error about the entry defect
in the skull.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Dr. Earl Rose: "Yes, there???s no question their conclusions were
correct. Two shots entered the president from behind, the entrance wound
to the back exiting in the throat at the site of the tracheotomy and the
entrance wound to the back of the head exiting in the right frontal
temporal area."
Rose had some minor criticisms, but he still agreed with the fundamental
conclusions. He said some of the wound locations are poorly described.
Rose also said that the three pathologists were not inept as if often
mentioned and that they were quite competent.
Rose went on to say that "You can???t blame the autopsy surgeons for
the fact that the autopsy should have been more complete ... considering
they were operating under the most trying, tremendously difficult
circumstances."
SIDENOTE: Back in 1978, while attending the United States Naval Academy in
Annapolis, MD, I actually got the opportunity to speak briefly (over the
phone) with Dr. James Humes (retired). I was doing a report for a
Political Science course I was taking called "Investigative Research",
although my major was Aerospace Engineering. [I admit, I took the class
mostly because there was no classroom attendance required and that my
grade was 100% based on the quality of the end-of-semester presentation.
It was part research, part public speaking and part developing a formal
presentation. The Kennedy assassination was very topical at the time
because of the HSCA which seemed to be in the Washington Post and
Baltimore Sun on a daily basis. I got to attend a couple public sessions
of the HSCA, an opportunity mostly afforded due to the proximity of
Annapolis to Washington, D.C. and my being an active duty military member.
I was there the day Louie Steven Witt was questioned, the beginning of the
first semester of my senior year, I believe. It was comical when the
umbrella was opened.] I think Humes only talked to me (i.e tolerated me)
was because I was a Navy midshipman. He struck me as a somewhat bitter man
due to the many criticisms of him over the years - everything from being a
total incompetent to being PART of the plot to cover-up the truth of the
assassination. He struck me as a scarred individual. When I read his ARRB
testimony, I can "hear" a lot of that same bitterness, anger and sarcasm.

The HSCA really gave him a going over, getting him to admit an error
about the entry defect in the skull.

As if such a minor error would matter to WC defenders. Close enough for
government work. It doesn't matter to them WHERE the wounds were as long
as they were bullet wounds.

Post by John McAdams
Then, in the 90s, he went back to claiming his mistaken EOP area
entry.
I do sympathize with him.
It's like: the President is stricken with an aneurysm, and rushed to
a military hospital, and some General orders an orthopedic surgeon
(rather than a vascular surgeon) to save him. The president dies and
the poor surgeon is blamed for the rest of his life.
That would be Humes.

Is that called Medical Incompetence or just Close Enough For Government
Work?

Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

d***@gmail.com

2018-07-23 01:36:55 UTC

Post by John McAdams
Not exactly true, but it was true that Burkley was accepted as
representing "the family," and conveying pressure to finish up.

Silly. The family was not there in the autopsy room to SEE them start to
dissect the back wound and tell them to stop immediately.

John knows that the family was not in the autopsy room and you KNOW that.
He specifically said that Burkley felt as if he was acting as a
representative of "the family" (that even John put in quotes) - clearly
indicating that "the family" was not actually in the room.

So often you criticize and nitpick on points that you have to know have no
substance. You have an inexplicable need to be critical and sarcastic at
all times, even when you KNOW that John McAdams knows good and well that
the family was not in the morgue.

Post by Anthony Marsh
It was an Army General. Jackie was not an Army General. RFK was not an
Army General. Caroline was not an Army General. John-John was not an Army
General.

"It was an Army General," you say. WHAT about this Army General? Tell us
about him. He was directing the autopsy? He was the guy as portrayed in
the movie JFK who was standing in the back of the morgue who, when asked,
"Who's in charge?" blurted out, "I am!".

What interpretations do YOU have regarding the common conspiracy view that
there was a "mysterious general" in the autopsy room directing certain
procedures?

Couldn't it simply be this ...

1) As supported by Dr. Finck's New Orleans testimony, some general was
directing "operations" but NOT the autopsy. Humes didn't like the chaos
swirling around the autopsy, both outside and inside, and blurted out,
"Who's in charge?"

2) Dr. Humes was feeling pressure from either (or both) General McHugh and
Admiral Burkley who, themselves, were feeling pressure from the 17th
floor.

Couldn't it be that simple - and the CTs have speculatively extrapolated
all this to create a mysterious ranking officer (supposedly an Army
general) in the morgue directing autopsy procedures - apparently with
sinister purposes to conceal the truth regarding the true nature of the
wounds - which, in itself, is kind of silly because this mysterious
general had to know that the truth was just one phone call away to
Parkland?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Anthony Marsh

2018-07-25 01:21:58 UTC

Post by John McAdams
Not exactly true, but it was true that Burkley was accepted as
representing "the family," and conveying pressure to finish up.

Silly. The family was not there in the autopsy room to SEE them start to
dissect the back wound and tell them to stop immediately.

There is no problem with that. Exactly when was Burkley in the autopsy
room? Was that when Humees started to dissect the back wound? Was Burkley
an Arm Genedal?

Post by d***@gmail.com
So often you criticize and nitpick on points that you have to know have no
substance. You have an inexplicable need to be critical and sarcastic at
all times, even when you KNOW that John McAdams knows good and well that
the family was not in the morgue.

I know that, he knows that, we all know that. So, what's your point? Who
was the Army General who ordered them not to dissect the back wound?

Post by Anthony Marsh
It was an Army General. Jackie was not an Army General. RFK was not an
Army General. Caroline was not an Army General. John-John was not an Army
General.

"It was an Army General," you say. WHAT about this Army General? Tell us
about him. He was directing the autopsy? He was the guy as portrayed in

No, he only intervened when they started to examine the back wound.

Post by d***@gmail.com
the movie JFK who was standing in the back of the morgue who, when asked,
"Who's in charge?" blurted out, "I am!".

I don't care who the actor was. Is he listed in the credits? And playing
whom?

Post by d***@gmail.com
What interpretations do YOU have regarding the common conspiracy view that
there was a "mysterious general" in the autopsy room directing certain
procedures?

Then tell us who he was and why he had authority over the autopsy doctors.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Couldn't it simply be this ...
1) As supported by Dr. Finck's New Orleans testimony, some general was
directing "operations" but NOT the autopsy. Humes didn't like the chaos

No. He only spoke up to prevent them from examining the back wound.
Maybe he didn't like where it lead.

Post by d***@gmail.com
swirling around the autopsy, both outside and inside, and blurted out,
"Who's in charge?"

He said that only in reaction to being told to stop examining the back
wound. Not General Chaos.

Post by d***@gmail.com
2) Dr. Humes was feeling pressure from either (or both) General McHugh and
Admiral Burkley who, themselves, were feeling pressure from the 17th
floor.

That's OK. They had plenty of time to remove and weigh the organs.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Couldn't it be that simple - and the CTs have speculatively extrapolated
all this to create a mysterious ranking officer (supposedly an Army
general) in the morgue directing autopsy procedures - apparently with
sinister purposes to conceal the truth regarding the true nature of the
wounds - which, in itself, is kind of silly because this mysterious
general had to know that the truth was just one phone call away to
Parkland?

No, you are just covering up for the Conspiracy as usual. Not much of a
job, but it pays the bills.

Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN

bigdog

2018-07-21 00:13:21 UTC

Exactly!
There are actually three points of authority conflict that occurred at
Bethesda.
First, there was the encounter outside the morgue when the body was
arriving. Humes noticed a gentleman with a camera and, knowing he
shouldn't be there, asked "Who's in charge?" - meaning, "Who is in charge
of this operation such that a rogue photographer is permitted to be
roaming around?" It had nothing to do with the autopsy. Humes received an
answer from General Philip C. Wehle, "I am!". General Wehle never even
entered the morgue and was not on the FBI list of those who were inside
morgue during the autopsy.
Then there was some confusion at the early stages as to the extent of the
autopsy. In all likelihood, Humes felt pressure from the very beginning.
"Just how long is this going to take? Hurry up! We know how the president
died. There's no need to hack him to pieces. The family is waiting." (my
words, of course)
Humes had to consult with his boss, Admiral Calvin B. Galloway, regarding
what KIND of autopsy was to be done - a partial or full? Admiral Galloway
authorized a FULL autopsy.
Yet, despite the authorization to conduct a full autopsy, the pressure
persisted throughout the procedure with frequent phone calls come from the
17th floor. "How much longer?" Much of this pressure was probably coming
from both Admiral George Burkley and General Godfrey McHugh. My guess is
that Humes finally gave in to some of this pressure and didn't perform
some time consuming procedures. Tracking the back/neck wound would have
been time consuming and, at the time, seemed somewhat pointless since they
already knew where the entry wound was ... they also "knew" that there was
no exit wound ... they also knew no bullet was embedded ... and they had
received word that a bullet was recovered at Parkland. So, what else could
Humes conclude at this point OTHER than the bullet did not transit and,
somehow, fell out through its point of entry? They hypothesized that this
might have occurred during attempts at cardiac resuscitation (which was
never performed).
It was puzzling because, on its face, that seems like a very unlikely
occurrence which is why Humes quickly changed his mind when a far more
plausible explanation presented itself once he discovered about the throat
wound the following day during his phone conversation with Dr. Perry - a
conversation that SHOULD have occurred BEFORE the autopsy even began - a
mistake to which Humes readily admitted.
John, you mention the buffs' obsession with the New Orleans testimony of
Dr. Finck, but they cherry-pick that testimony and almost always leave out
his clarification on the who-is-in-charge thing, stating that it had
nothing to do with the conduct of autopsy.
Tony suggests that Finck might have not been able to distinguish between
an Army General and Navy "General". Pierre Finck was a Colonel and
certainly had enough experience in the military to know the difference.
Finck, himself, was only one rank below Brigadier General at the time. The
Navy doesn't have Generals - they have Admirals. The Marine Corps, which
operates under the Department of the Navy, has Generals, however. Either
way, what difference does any of that make? The point is that nobody - no
General or Admiral - was ordering the conduct of the autopsy - certainly
not in the manner as most conspiracy theorists see it. Yet, there can be
little doubt that Humes didn't feel pressure to finish sooner rather than
later.
It wasn't a perfect autopsy but it was good enough. Even Dr. Earl Rose,
the Parkland doctor who would have done the autopsy had Kennedy's body
remained in Dallas and who served on the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel,
agreed with the fundamental conclusions of the Bethesda autopsy.
In fact, in 1978, Vincent Bugliosi asked Dr. Earl Rose (now retired),
"Were you satisfied from your review of the autopsy photos and x-rays that
the autopsy surgeons reached the same conclusion you would have reached if
you had conducted the autopsy back in 1963 in Dallas?"
Dr. Earl Rose: "Yes, there’s no question their conclusions were
correct. Two shots entered the president from behind, the entrance wound
to the back exiting in the throat at the site of the tracheotomy and the
entrance wound to the back of the head exiting in the right frontal
temporal area."
Rose had some minor criticisms, but he still agreed with the fundamental
conclusions. He said some of the wound locations are poorly described.
Rose also said that the three pathologists were not inept as if often
mentioned and that they were quite competent.
Rose went on to say that "You can’t blame the autopsy surgeons for
the fact that the autopsy should have been more complete ... considering
they were operating under the most trying, tremendously difficult
circumstances."
SIDENOTE: Back in 1978, while attending the United States Naval Academy in
Annapolis, MD, I actually got the opportunity to speak briefly (over the
phone) with Dr. James Humes (retired). I was doing a report for a
Political Science course I was taking called "Investigative Research",
although my major was Aerospace Engineering. [I admit, I took the class
mostly because there was no classroom attendance required and that my
grade was 100% based on the quality of the end-of-semester presentation.
It was part research, part public speaking and part developing a formal
presentation. The Kennedy assassination was very topical at the time
because of the HSCA which seemed to be in the Washington Post and
Baltimore Sun on a daily basis. I got to attend a couple public sessions
of the HSCA, an opportunity mostly afforded due to the proximity of
Annapolis to Washington, D.C. and my being an active duty military member.
I was there the day Louie Steven Witt was questioned, the beginning of the
first semester of my senior year, I believe. It was comical when the
umbrella was opened.] I think Humes only talked to me (i.e tolerated me)
was because I was a Navy midshipman. He struck me as a somewhat bitter man
due to the many criticisms of him over the years - everything from being a
total incompetent to being PART of the plot to cover-up the truth of the
assassination. He struck me as a scarred individual. When I read his ARRB
testimony, I can "hear" a lot of that same bitterness, anger and sarcasm.

This is where whoever was making the decisions dropped the ball. I don't
have a problem with the body being removed from Dallas so that AF1 could
get into the relative safety of the air because early on nobody knew if it
was part of a Soviet attempt to decapitate the government. Nobody had any
idea who was behind it. The mistake was in deciding that the autopsy
needed to be conducted by the military because JFK was the
commander-in-chief. That was wrong for several reasons. For one, the
military didn't have people on staff experienced in medico-legal autopsies
of murder victims. Legally establishing the cause of death is a
requirement in the prosecution of an accused murderer. Without doing that,
you can't establish a crime was committed. It simply wasn't good enough to
say, "we know how he died" whether those words were actually spoken or
that was the attitude of those in charge. An experienced civilian medical
examiner would have been aware of the importance of legally establishing
cause of death. He also would not have been required to follow directives
from senior officers from either the Army or the Navy. If pressured to
take short cuts, he would be more likely than a military pathologist to
tell those officers that if the autopsy were not conducted properly, it
could jeopardize the prosecution of the assassin. Had this case gone to
trial, the defense might have challenged the validity of the autopsy. I
doubt it would have been a successful ploy but there was no reason to even
given them that ammunition.

Anthony Marsh

2018-07-25 01:26:59 UTC

Exactly!
There are actually three points of authority conflict that occurred at
Bethesda.
First, there was the encounter outside the morgue when the body was
arriving. Humes noticed a gentleman with a camera and, knowing he
shouldn't be there, asked "Who's in charge?" - meaning, "Who is in charge
of this operation such that a rogue photographer is permitted to be
roaming around?" It had nothing to do with the autopsy. Humes received an
answer from General Philip C. Wehle, "I am!". General Wehle never even
entered the morgue and was not on the FBI list of those who were inside
morgue during the autopsy.
Then there was some confusion at the early stages as to the extent of the
autopsy. In all likelihood, Humes felt pressure from the very beginning.
"Just how long is this going to take? Hurry up! We know how the president
died. There's no need to hack him to pieces. The family is waiting." (my
words, of course)
Humes had to consult with his boss, Admiral Calvin B. Galloway, regarding
what KIND of autopsy was to be done - a partial or full? Admiral Galloway
authorized a FULL autopsy.
Yet, despite the authorization to conduct a full autopsy, the pressure
persisted throughout the procedure with frequent phone calls come from the
17th floor. "How much longer?" Much of this pressure was probably coming
from both Admiral George Burkley and General Godfrey McHugh. My guess is
that Humes finally gave in to some of this pressure and didn't perform
some time consuming procedures. Tracking the back/neck wound would have
been time consuming and, at the time, seemed somewhat pointless since they
already knew where the entry wound was ... they also "knew" that there was
no exit wound ... they also knew no bullet was embedded ... and they had
received word that a bullet was recovered at Parkland. So, what else could
Humes conclude at this point OTHER than the bullet did not transit and,
somehow, fell out through its point of entry? They hypothesized that this
might have occurred during attempts at cardiac resuscitation (which was
never performed).
It was puzzling because, on its face, that seems like a very unlikely
occurrence which is why Humes quickly changed his mind when a far more
plausible explanation presented itself once he discovered about the throat
wound the following day during his phone conversation with Dr. Perry - a
conversation that SHOULD have occurred BEFORE the autopsy even began - a
mistake to which Humes readily admitted.
John, you mention the buffs' obsession with the New Orleans testimony of
Dr. Finck, but they cherry-pick that testimony and almost always leave out
his clarification on the who-is-in-charge thing, stating that it had
nothing to do with the conduct of autopsy.
Tony suggests that Finck might have not been able to distinguish between
an Army General and Navy "General". Pierre Finck was a Colonel and
certainly had enough experience in the military to know the difference.
Finck, himself, was only one rank below Brigadier General at the time. The
Navy doesn't have Generals - they have Admirals. The Marine Corps, which
operates under the Department of the Navy, has Generals, however. Either
way, what difference does any of that make? The point is that nobody - no
General or Admiral - was ordering the conduct of the autopsy - certainly
not in the manner as most conspiracy theorists see it. Yet, there can be
little doubt that Humes didn't feel pressure to finish sooner rather than
later.
It wasn't a perfect autopsy but it was good enough. Even Dr. Earl Rose,
the Parkland doctor who would have done the autopsy had Kennedy's body
remained in Dallas and who served on the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel,
agreed with the fundamental conclusions of the Bethesda autopsy.
In fact, in 1978, Vincent Bugliosi asked Dr. Earl Rose (now retired),
"Were you satisfied from your review of the autopsy photos and x-rays that
the autopsy surgeons reached the same conclusion you would have reached if
you had conducted the autopsy back in 1963 in Dallas?"
Dr. Earl Rose: "Yes, there???s no question their conclusions were
correct. Two shots entered the president from behind, the entrance wound
to the back exiting in the throat at the site of the tracheotomy and the
entrance wound to the back of the head exiting in the right frontal
temporal area."
Rose had some minor criticisms, but he still agreed with the fundamental
conclusions. He said some of the wound locations are poorly described.
Rose also said that the three pathologists were not inept as if often
mentioned and that they were quite competent.
Rose went on to say that "You can???t blame the autopsy surgeons for
the fact that the autopsy should have been more complete ... considering
they were operating under the most trying, tremendously difficult
circumstances."
SIDENOTE: Back in 1978, while attending the United States Naval Academy in
Annapolis, MD, I actually got the opportunity to speak briefly (over the
phone) with Dr. James Humes (retired). I was doing a report for a
Political Science course I was taking called "Investigative Research",
although my major was Aerospace Engineering. [I admit, I took the class
mostly because there was no classroom attendance required and that my
grade was 100% based on the quality of the end-of-semester presentation.
It was part research, part public speaking and part developing a formal
presentation. The Kennedy assassination was very topical at the time
because of the HSCA which seemed to be in the Washington Post and
Baltimore Sun on a daily basis. I got to attend a couple public sessions
of the HSCA, an opportunity mostly afforded due to the proximity of
Annapolis to Washington, D.C. and my being an active duty military member.
I was there the day Louie Steven Witt was questioned, the beginning of the
first semester of my senior year, I believe. It was comical when the
umbrella was opened.] I think Humes only talked to me (i.e tolerated me)
was because I was a Navy midshipman. He struck me as a somewhat bitter man
due to the many criticisms of him over the years - everything from being a
total incompetent to being PART of the plot to cover-up the truth of the
assassination. He struck me as a scarred individual. When I read his ARRB
testimony, I can "hear" a lot of that same bitterness, anger and sarcasm.

OK, but at least find COMPETENT forensic pathologists to do the autopsy.

Post by bigdog
needed to be conducted by the military because JFK was the
commander-in-chief. That was wrong for several reasons. For one, the
military didn't have people on staff experienced in medico-legal autopsies
of murder victims. Legally establishing the cause of death is a
requirement in the prosecution of an accused murderer. Without doing that,
you can't establish a crime was committed. It simply wasn't good enough to
say, "we know how he died" whether those words were actually spoken or
that was the attitude of those in charge. An experienced civilian medical
examiner would have been aware of the importance of legally establishing
cause of death. He also would not have been required to follow directives
from senior officers from either the Army or the Navy. If pressured to
take short cuts, he would be more likely than a military pathologist to
tell those officers that if the autopsy were not conducted properly, it
could jeopardize the prosecution of the assassin. Had this case gone to
trial, the defense might have challenged the validity of the autopsy. I
doubt it would have been a successful ploy but there was no reason to even
given them that ammunition.

Well, it's also that this was a political assassination and they needed
to find all possible clues as to who did it and why.

Anthony Marsh

2018-07-22 01:42:43 UTC

Exactly!

Silly. Maybe .JOhn can not tell the difference between a General and an
Admiral, but surely Finck could since he was in the ARMY. Of course they
might not have been in uniform, just in their bathing suits, so maybe it
is hard to tell the difference.

Post by d***@gmail.com
There are actually three points of authority conflict that occurred at
Bethesda.
First, there was the encounter outside the morgue when the body was
arriving. Humes noticed a gentleman with a camera and, knowing he
shouldn't be there, asked "Who's in charge?" - meaning, "Who is in charge
of this operation such that a rogue photographer is permitted to be
roaming around?" It had nothing to do with the autopsy. Humes received an
answer from General Philip C. Wehle, "I am!". General Wehle never even
entered the morgue and was not on the FBI list of those who were inside
morgue during the autopsy.
Then there was some confusion at the early stages as to the extent of the
autopsy. In all likelihood, Humes felt pressure from the very beginning.
"Just how long is this going to take? Hurry up! We know how the president
died. There's no need to hack him to pieces. The family is waiting." (my
words, of course)
Humes had to consult with his boss, Admiral Calvin B. Galloway, regarding
what KIND of autopsy was to be done - a partial or full? Admiral Galloway
authorized a FULL autopsy.

WHat aboout Stover?

Post by d***@gmail.com
Yet, despite the authorization to conduct a full autopsy, the pressure
persisted throughout the procedure with frequent phone calls come from the
17th floor. "How much longer?" Much of this pressure was probably coming

Yes, exactly. Phone calls. You can't convince me that they had close
circuuit TV then and Burkely saw on TV that Fincke or Humes was going to
but into the back and called them to tell them to stop.

The way Fincke phrases it the unnamable General was right there in the
autopsy room supervising EVERYTHING they did.

Post by d***@gmail.com
from both Admiral George Burkley and General Godfrey McHugh. My guess is
that Humes finally gave in to some of this pressure and didn't perform
some time consuming procedures. Tracking the back/neck wound would have

Yes, it's such a pain in the neck to remove the brain and do a Y incision
and remove all the organs and weigh them all. It might take 5 hours for
the Three Stooges who had no experience with autopsies, plus Humes was
getting drowsy and needed some sleep.

Post by d***@gmail.com
been time consuming and, at the time, seemed somewhat pointless since they
already knew where the entry wound was ... they also "knew" that there was
no exit wound ... they also knew no bullet was embedded ... and they had

Well, they didn't even find the back wound until the end of the autopsy.
But why all the careful work and measuring? Isn't it obvious that no one
could survive a bullet wound to the head like that? Just list cause of
death as shot to the head. It's not like there are any laws or rules they
have to obey.

Post by d***@gmail.com
received word that a bullet was recovered at Parkland. So, what else could
Humes conclude at this point OTHER than the bullet did not transit and,
somehow, fell out through its point of entry? They hypothesized that this
might have occurred during attempts at cardiac resuscitation (which was
never performed).

WHich bullet? The one through JFK or the one through Connally or the one
that missed or the one through the head?

Post by d***@gmail.com
It was puzzling because, on its face, that seems like a very unlikely
occurrence which is why Humes quickly changed his mind when a far more
plausible explanation presented itself once he discovered about the throat
wound the following day during his phone conversation with Dr. Perry - a
conversation that SHOULD have occurred BEFORE the autopsy even began - a
mistake to which Humes readily admitted.

Everybody makes mistakes. That's why they needed Three Stooges to do the
autopsy. One to make the mistake and the other 2 to cover it up.

I think the reason might be because it was a real trial and people were
under oath.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Tony suggests that Finck might have not been able to distinguish between
an Army General and Navy "General". Pierre Finck was a Colonel and

I think my point was that surely he WOULD be able to tell the difference
and he knew it was an ARMY General. Do you know any Navy Generals?

Post by d***@gmail.com
certainly had enough experience in the military to know the difference.
Finck, himself, was only one rank below Brigadier General at the time. The
Navy doesn't have Generals - they have Admirals. The Marine Corps, which
operates under the Department of the Navy, has Generals, however. Either

Now, I like that. How about a Marine General, who worked for the CIA and
planned the Bay of Pigs invasion? Now you're talking!

Post by d***@gmail.com
way, what difference does any of that make? The point is that nobody - no
General or Admiral - was ordering the conduct of the autopsy - certainly
not in the manner as most conspiracy theorists see it. Yet, there can be

Kinda seems like it when he teklls them to stop what they're doing and
move on.

Post by d***@gmail.com
little doubt that Humes didn't feel pressure to finish sooner rather than
later.

This is NOT about finishing early to go home and get some sleep.
They could have done that at any other time in the autopsy.
Did they have to stay and help the morticians?
THIS is only about dissecting the back wound.

Post by d***@gmail.com
It wasn't a perfect autopsy but it was good enough. Even Dr. Earl Rose,

Good enough for government work.

Post by d***@gmail.com
the Parkland doctor who would have done the autopsy had Kennedy's body
remained in Dallas and who served on the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel,

But that would be like obeying the law.
The Secret Service does not have to obey the law.

Post by d***@gmail.com
agreed with the fundamental conclusions of the Bethesda autopsy.
In fact, in 1978, Vincent Bugliosi asked Dr. Earl Rose (now retired),
"Were you satisfied from your review of the autopsy photos and x-rays that
the autopsy surgeons reached the same conclusion you would have reached if
you had conducted the autopsy back in 1963 in Dallas?"
Dr. Earl Rose: "Yes, there???s no question their conclusions were
correct. Two shots entered the president from behind, the entrance wound
to the back exiting in the throat at the site of the tracheotomy and the
entrance wound to the back of the head exiting in the right frontal
temporal area."
Rose had some minor criticisms, but he still agreed with the fundamental
conclusions. He said some of the wound locations are poorly described.
Rose also said that the three pathologists were not inept as if often
mentioned and that they were quite competent.

Could Rose see the bullet hole in the forehead that even McAdams can see?

Post by d***@gmail.com
Rose went on to say that "You can???t blame the autopsy surgeons for
the fact that the autopsy should have been more complete ... considering
they were operating under the most trying, tremendously difficult
circumstances."

Yes, exactly. They were facing WWIII. WHy couldn't they have done the
autopsy in the completely equipped operating room in the Top Secret
bunker outside of Washington?

Post by d***@gmail.com
SIDENOTE: Back in 1978, while attending the United States Naval Academy in
Annapolis, MD, I actually got the opportunity to speak briefly (over the
phone) with Dr. James Humes (retired). I was doing a report for a
Political Science course I was taking called "Investigative Research",
although my major was Aerospace Engineering. [I admit, I took the class
mostly because there was no classroom attendance required and that my
grade was 100% based on the quality of the end-of-semester presentation.
It was part research, part public speaking and part developing a formal
presentation. The Kennedy assassination was very topical at the time
because of the HSCA which seemed to be in the Washington Post and
Baltimore Sun on a daily basis. I got to attend a couple public sessions
of the HSCA, an opportunity mostly afforded due to the proximity of
Annapolis to Washington, D.C. and my being an active duty military member.
I was there the day Louie Steven Witt was questioned, the beginning of the
first semester of my senior year, I believe. It was comical when the
umbrella was opened.] I think Humes only talked to me (i.e tolerated me)
was because I was a Navy midshipman. He struck me as a somewhat bitter man
due to the many criticisms of him over the years - everything from being a
total incompetent to being PART of the plot to cover-up the truth of the
assassination. He struck me as a scarred individual. When I read his ARRB
testimony, I can "hear" a lot of that same bitterness, anger and sarcasm.

I don't blame him. He didn't want to do the autopsy. He knew he was
unqualifid, but it was thrust upon him and he did the best he could.

Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN

mainframetech

2018-07-22 01:56:11 UTC

As well, Dr. Ebersole (radiologist) spoke about knowing DURING the
autopsy that there had been a tracheotomy in a throat wound:

"After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole,
MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, “Ebersole had told me
during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound
from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he
had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy
– that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that
intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound –
corresponding to the back entrance wound – was
solved.”[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two
hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy."

From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm

and also Audrey Bell, Nursing Supervisor:

"Given permission, she continues, “Saturday morning when I got
over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of
course he had been primary until Dr. Clark came … He sat down in a
chair. I said, ‘You look awful. Did you get any sleep last
night?’ And he said, ‘Well, not too much between the calls
from Bethesda that came in during the night.’ I said,
‘What about?’ He said, ‘Oh. Whether that was an
entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat.’ He said,
‘They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance
wound.’

From: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html

Some of the enlisted men that were part of the autopsy team said they
heard commands from Burkley like 'you don't need to do that, move on' and
similar remarks.

Post by d***@gmail.com
It wasn't a perfect autopsy but it was good enough. Even Dr. Earl Rose,
the Parkland doctor who would have done the autopsy had Kennedy's body
remained in Dallas and who served on the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel,
agreed with the fundamental conclusions of the Bethesda autopsy.
In fact, in 1978, Vincent Bugliosi asked Dr. Earl Rose (now retired),
"Were you satisfied from your review of the autopsy photos and x-rays that
the autopsy surgeons reached the same conclusion you would have reached if
you had conducted the autopsy back in 1963 in Dallas?"
Dr. Earl Rose: "Yes, there’s no question their conclusions were
correct. Two shots entered the president from behind, the entrance wound
to the back exiting in the throat at the site of the tracheotomy and the
entrance wound to the back of the head exiting in the right frontal
temporal area."

Earl Rose was shown the same material that the medical panels were
shown, which was limited to information that would support the phony
Autopsy Report (AR). No one that reviewed the autopsy from the data could
make any other conclusion, yet those that saw the proof in the body DURING
the autopsy, when the organs were removed, knew that the back wound bullet
never left the body of JFK through the throat wound. If (for instance) he
had been shown the bullet wound in the forehead/temple area, there would
have ben a different attitude and conclusions from Rose and the panels
too.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Rose had some minor criticisms, but he still agreed with the fundamental
conclusions. He said some of the wound locations are poorly described.
Rose also said that the three pathologists were not inept as if often
mentioned and that they were quite competent.
Rose went on to say that "You can’t blame the autopsy surgeons for
the fact that the autopsy should have been more complete ... considering
they were operating under the most trying, tremendously difficult
circumstances."
SIDENOTE: Back in 1978, while attending the United States Naval Academy in
Annapolis, MD, I actually got the opportunity to speak briefly (over the
phone) with Dr. James Humes (retired). I was doing a report for a
Political Science course I was taking called "Investigative Research",
although my major was Aerospace Engineering. [I admit, I took the class
mostly because there was no classroom attendance required and that my
grade was 100% based on the quality of the end-of-semester presentation.
It was part research, part public speaking and part developing a formal
presentation. The Kennedy assassination was very topical at the time
because of the HSCA which seemed to be in the Washington Post and
Baltimore Sun on a daily basis. I got to attend a couple public sessions
of the HSCA, an opportunity mostly afforded due to the proximity of
Annapolis to Washington, D.C. and my being an active duty military member.
I was there the day Louie Steven Witt was questioned, the beginning of the
first semester of my senior year, I believe. It was comical when the
umbrella was opened.] I think Humes only talked to me (i.e tolerated me)
was because I was a Navy midshipman. He struck me as a somewhat bitter man
due to the many criticisms of him over the years - everything from being a
total incompetent to being PART of the plot to cover-up the truth of the
assassination. He struck me as a scarred individual. When I read his ARRB
testimony, I can "hear" a lot of that same bitterness, anger and sarcasm.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Humes may also have been embittered by being forced to lie about the
autopsy, which might have been a major item in his service record, but
became a burden when he had to go all over and lie to everyone about it,
and be blamed for all kinds of things he had to concoct on the spur of the
moment.

Chris

bigdog

2018-07-22 21:28:31 UTC

Humes lied when he said that he learned about the tracheostomy on
Saturday morning. He needed an excuse for why he had burned his notes,
which was not supposed to be done. The notes were to be saved in all
cases. Here's the proof that Humes knew DURING the autopsy or before,
http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
As well, Dr. Ebersole (radiologist) spoke about knowing DURING the
"After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole,
MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, “Ebersole had told me
during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound
from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he
had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy
– that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that
intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound –
corresponding to the back entrance wound – was
solved.”[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two
hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm
"Given permission, she continues, “Saturday morning when I got
over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of
course he had been primary until Dr. Clark came … He sat down in a
chair. I said, ‘You look awful. Did you get any sleep last
night?’ And he said, ‘Well, not too much between the calls
from Bethesda that came in during the night.’ I said,
‘What about?’ He said, ‘Oh. Whether that was an
entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat.’ He said,
‘They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance
wound.’
From: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html

Some of the enlisted men that were part of the autopsy team said they
heard commands from Burkley like 'you don't need to do that, move on' and
similar remarks.

The autopsy team suspected by the time the autopsy was completed that a
tracheostomy had been performed over the exit wound which is why they
originally didn't think there had been one. Humes wanted to verify that
with Dr. Perry directly and that conversation took place the following
morning. There had been conversations between Parkland and Bethesda during
the autopsy but Saturday morning is when Humes spoke directly to Perry.
You can't cite a single witness who said Humes spoke directly to Perry the
previous night.

mainframetech

2018-07-23 21:17:03 UTC

Some of the enlisted men that were part of the autopsy team said they
heard commands from Burkley like 'you don't need to do that, move on' and
similar remarks.

WRONG as usual! Your lack of knowledge about this case leads you
into trouble often. Here are 3 witnesses proving that Humes knew the day
of the murder that a tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound in the
throat.

1. Dr. Livingston - http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg

2. Dr. Ebersole

"After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole,
MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, “Ebersole had told me
during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound
from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he
had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy
– that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that
intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound –
corresponding to the back entrance wound – was
solved.”[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two
hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy."

From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm

3. Nurse Audrey Bell -

"Given permission, she continues, “Saturday morning when I got
over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of
course he had been primary until Dr. Clark came … He sat down in a
chair. I said, ‘You look awful. Did you get any sleep last
night?’ And he said, ‘Well, not too much between the calls
from Bethesda that came in during the night.’ I said,
‘What about?’ He said, ‘Oh. Whether that was an
entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat.’ He said,
‘They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance
wound.’” [31] Nurse Bell clarifies that her exchange with
Dr. Perry occurred in the morning, before he decamped just after the
Saturday press conference, during which he was silent after telling Dr.
Kemp Clark what Humes had told him, and asking Clark to take over for him
to avoid having to lie at the Saturday afternoon press conference. Chalk
up another perjury for Humes, who testified that he did not discuss the
results of the autopsy with Dr. Perry. [32] The frosting on the cover-up
cake may now be tasted. Perry talked to Humes on Friday and told him that
the throat wound was an entrance wound, as did Dr. Livingston, and almost
certainly others."

From: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html

Humes knew about the tracheostomy during the autopsy. Try and get it
right next time.

Chris

bigdog

2018-07-24 21:12:33 UTC

On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot

Post by bigdog
The autopsy team suspected by the time the autopsy was completed that a
tracheostomy had been performed over the exit wound which is why they
originally didn't think there had been one. Humes wanted to verify that
with Dr. Perry directly and that conversation took place the following
morning. There had been conversations between Parkland and Bethesda during
the autopsy but Saturday morning is when Humes spoke directly to Perry.
You can't cite a single witness who said Humes spoke directly to Perry the
previous night.

WRONG as usual! Your lack of knowledge about this case leads you
into trouble often. Here are 3 witnesses proving that Humes knew the day
of the murder that a tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound in the
throat.
1. Dr. Livingston - http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
2. Dr. Ebersole
"After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole,
MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, “Ebersole had told me
during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound
from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he
had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy
– that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that
intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound –
corresponding to the back entrance wound – was
solved.”[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two
hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm
3. Nurse Audrey Bell -
"Given permission, she continues, “Saturday morning when I got
over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of
course he had been primary until Dr. Clark came … He sat down in a
chair. I said, ‘You look awful. Did you get any sleep last
night?’ And he said, ‘Well, not too much between the calls
from Bethesda that came in during the night.’ I said,
‘What about?’ He said, ‘Oh. Whether that was an
entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat.’ He said,
‘They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance
wound.’” [31] Nurse Bell clarifies that her exchange with
Dr. Perry occurred in the morning, before he decamped just after the
Saturday press conference, during which he was silent after telling Dr.
Kemp Clark what Humes had told him, and asking Clark to take over for him
to avoid having to lie at the Saturday afternoon press conference. Chalk
up another perjury for Humes, who testified that he did not discuss the
results of the autopsy with Dr. Perry. [32] The frosting on the cover-up
cake may now be tasted. Perry talked to Humes on Friday and told him that
the throat wound was an entrance wound, as did Dr. Livingston, and almost
certainly others."
From: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html
Humes knew about the tracheostomy during the autopsy. Try and get it
right next time.

Try reading for comprehension next time. I stated that the autopsy team
suspected during the autopsy that the tracheostomy incision had been
performed over the bullet hole but that wasn't confirmed until the next
morning when Humes spoke directly to Perry. None of the witnesses you have
cited refutes that. Livingston did not claim to have told Humes that the
tracheostomy incision had been performed over the bullet hole because he
had no way of knowing that. You didn't quote Ebersole, you quoted Mantik
but even he doesn't tell us Humes spoke to Perry the night of the autopsy.
Bell did not say Humes and Perry spoke to each other on Friday night
either. Not only did you not comprehend what I wrote, you failed to
comprehend what the people you cited said either.

mainframetech

2018-07-27 00:57:51 UTC

On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot

WRONG as usual! Your lack of knowledge about this case leads you
into trouble often. Here are 3 witnesses proving that Humes knew the day
of the murder that a tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound in the
throat.
1. Dr. Livingston - http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
2. Dr. Ebersole
"After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole,
MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, “Ebersole had told me
during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound
from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he
had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy
– that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that
intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound –
corresponding to the back entrance wound – was
solved.”[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two
hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm
3. Nurse Audrey Bell -
"Given permission, she continues, “Saturday morning when I got
over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of
course he had been primary until Dr. Clark came … He sat down in a
chair. I said, ‘You look awful. Did you get any sleep last
night?’ And he said, ‘Well, not too much between the calls
from Bethesda that came in during the night.’ I said,
‘What about?’ He said, ‘Oh. Whether that was an
entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat.’ He said,
‘They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance
wound.’” [31] Nurse Bell clarifies that her exchange with
Dr. Perry occurred in the morning, before he decamped just after the
Saturday press conference, during which he was silent after telling Dr.
Kemp Clark what Humes had told him, and asking Clark to take over for him
to avoid having to lie at the Saturday afternoon press conference. Chalk
up another perjury for Humes, who testified that he did not discuss the
results of the autopsy with Dr. Perry. [32] The frosting on the cover-up
cake may now be tasted. Perry talked to Humes on Friday and told him that
the throat wound was an entrance wound, as did Dr. Livingston, and almost
certainly others."
From: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html
Humes knew about the tracheostomy during the autopsy. Try and get it
right next time.

WRONG! I have Ebersole's words from his testimony. Looks like you
fell into it again. Here:

"Dr. EBERSOLE. Somewhere in the course of the evening Dr. Humes received
information from Dallas re the procedures that had been carried out there,
number one. Number two, somewhere in the course of the evening Dallas sent
to us the bony fragments you saw which were X rayed as to how this was
carried out. The mechanics I don't know. Somewhere in the course of the
autopsy Dr. Humes was made aware of the surgical procedures at Dallas
vis-a-vis the neck.
Mr. PURDY. And what was that information?
Dr. EBERSOLE. The information was that there had been a wound of exit there,
a tracheotomy and a suturing done."

From: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ebersole.htm

Now Livingston had a way of knowing things, called a telephone, but
his video said he told Humes that there was a bullet entrance near to the
tracheotomy. It was enough for Humes to figure out that they overlapped
once he saw the throat. However, here are the words also of Dr. Perry at
Parkland:

"Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations
with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital?
Dr. PERRY - Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - When did that conversation occur?
Dr. PERRY - My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in
doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but
I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have an independent recollection at this moment as to
whether it was on Friday or Saturday?
Dr. PERRY - No, sir; I have thought about it again and the events surrounding
that weekend were very kaleidoscopic, and I talked with Dr. Humes on two
occasions, separated by a very short interval of, I think it was, 30 minutes
or an hour or so, it could have been a little longer.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the medium of your conversation?
Dr. PERRY - Over the telephone.
Mr. SPECTER - Did he identify himself to you as Dr. Humes of Bethesda?
Dr. PERRY - He did.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you state as specifically as you can recollect the
conversation that you first had with him?
Dr. PERRY - He advised me that he could not discuss with me the findings of
necropsy, that he had a few questions he would like to clarify. The initial
phone call was in relation to my doing a tracheotomy. Since I had made the
incision directly through the wound in the neck, it made it difficult for
them to ascertain the exact nature of this wound. Of course, that did not
occur to me at the time."

Note that Perry's first impression was that he spoke with Humes Friday
night, but it sounds like someone told him it was Saturday later.

The third person was Nurse Audrey Bell, who heard the complaints of
DR. Perry, who aid he was getting calls from Humes at night. So that fits
with Perry's first impression.

Chris

John McAdams

2018-07-27 01:00:58 UTC

On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot

WRONG! I have Ebersole's words from his testimony. Looks like you
"Dr. EBERSOLE. Somewhere in the course of the evening Dr. Humes received
information from Dallas re the procedures that had been carried out there,
number one. Number two, somewhere in the course of the evening Dallas sent
to us the bony fragments you saw which were X rayed as to how this was
carried out. The mechanics I don't know. Somewhere in the course of the
autopsy Dr. Humes was made aware of the surgical procedures at Dallas
vis-a-vis the neck.
Mr. PURDY. And what was that information?
Dr. EBERSOLE. The information was that there had been a wound of exit there,
a tracheotomy and a suturing done."
From: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ebersole.htm
Now Livingston had a way of knowing things, called a telephone, but
his video said he told Humes that there was a bullet entrance near to the
tracheotomy. It was enough for Humes to figure out that they overlapped
once he saw the throat. However, here are the words also of Dr. Perry at
"Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations
with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital?
Dr. PERRY - Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - When did that conversation occur?
Dr. PERRY - My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in
doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but
I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have an independent recollection at this moment as to
whether it was on Friday or Saturday?
Dr. PERRY - No, sir; I have thought about it again and the events surrounding
that weekend were very kaleidoscopic, and I talked with Dr. Humes on two
occasions, separated by a very short interval of, I think it was, 30 minutes
or an hour or so, it could have been a little longer.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the medium of your conversation?
Dr. PERRY - Over the telephone.
Mr. SPECTER - Did he identify himself to you as Dr. Humes of Bethesda?
Dr. PERRY - He did.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you state as specifically as you can recollect the
conversation that you first had with him?
Dr. PERRY - He advised me that he could not discuss with me the findings of
necropsy, that he had a few questions he would like to clarify. The initial
phone call was in relation to my doing a tracheotomy. Since I had made the
incision directly through the wound in the neck, it made it difficult for
them to ascertain the exact nature of this wound. Of course, that did not
occur to me at the time."
Note that Perry's first impression was that he spoke with Humes Friday
night, but it sounds like someone told him it was Saturday later.
The third person was Nurse Audrey Bell, who heard the complaints of
DR. Perry, who aid he was getting calls from Humes at night. So that fits
with Perry's first impression.

Your problem is simple: if Humes knew the night of the autopsy that a
tracheotomy obscured the throat wound, why didn't he then reach the
conclusion he eventually *did* reach: that the bullet had exited the
throat.

Given that the back wound was an entrance (with an abrasion collar)
and no bullet was found in the torso, it was the obvious one.

*If* you knew about a wound in the throat.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

bigdog

2018-07-28 03:53:29 UTC

On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot

Your problem is simple: if Humes knew the night of the autopsy that a
tracheotomy obscured the throat wound, why didn't he then reach the
conclusion he eventually *did* reach: that the bullet had exited the
throat.
Given that the back wound was an entrance (with an abrasion collar)
and no bullet was found in the torso, it was the obvious one.
*If* you knew about a wound in the throat.

Excellent point. I'm embarrassed that after going around and around with
Chris on this that your argument had not occurred to me before. Had they
known they had a bullet hole in the throat they would not have been
stumped by the lack of a bullet in the body and would never have floated
bizarre ideas like an ice bullet or a shallow bullet being forced out by
heart massage.

mainframetech

2018-07-29 18:12:01 UTC

On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot

Your problem is simple: if Humes knew the night of the autopsy that a
tracheotomy obscured the throat wound, why didn't he then reach the
conclusion he eventually *did* reach: that the bullet had exited the
throat.
Given that the back wound was an entrance (with an abrasion collar)
and no bullet was found in the torso, it was the obvious one.
*If* you knew about a wound in the throat.

Get off it! There were 3 witnesses that made corroboration to the
fact that Humes knew DURING the autopsy, and probably before it, that the
tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound. And if it wasn't Humes on the
phone when the info was mentioned, that person would pass it on to Humes,
who was nominally in charge of the autopsy. I don't know why you enjoy
skating on such thin ice.

BTW, the 'ice bullet' idea as from James Sibert, the FBI agent.

Chris

bigdog

2018-07-30 02:10:23 UTC

On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot

Your problem is simple: if Humes knew the night of the autopsy that a
tracheotomy obscured the throat wound, why didn't he then reach the
conclusion he eventually *did* reach: that the bullet had exited the
throat.
Given that the back wound was an entrance (with an abrasion collar)
and no bullet was found in the torso, it was the obvious one.
*If* you knew about a wound in the throat.

Get off it! There were 3 witnesses that made corroboration to the
fact that Humes knew DURING the autopsy, and probably before it, that the
tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound.

I'm sure that once that opened up the body and saw where the trail of
tissue damage led them, to the trachea, that they began to suspect that
was the case but still needed to confirm that with Parkland. They would
have no way of knowing that in the early stages of the autopsy when all
they had was an entry wound, no APPARENT exit, and no bullet in the body.
That didn't make sense to them and it is easy to understand why.

Post by mainframetech
And if it wasn't Humes on the
phone when the info was mentioned, that person would pass it on to Humes,
who was nominally in charge of the autopsy. I don't know why you enjoy
skating on such thin ice.

Does this mean you are finally coming around to the realization that there
is no evidence Humes spoke directly to Perry on Friday night, just as I
have been telling you. I have never disputed there was communications
between Bethesda and Parkland during the autopsy. What I have disputed is
that the team knew from the start that the tracheostomy had been performed
over the exit wound. They had no way of knowing that and as John McAdams
has correctly pointed out, had they know that, they wouldn't have
exhibited the early confusion as to what happened with the bullet that
entered the back.

Post by mainframetech
BTW, the 'ice bullet' idea as from James Sibert, the FBI agent.

Sibert was only reporting what he heard the autopsy team hypothesize. He
was there as an observer, not to do any analysis on his own.

mainframetech

2018-07-31 01:19:10 UTC

On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot

Your problem is simple: if Humes knew the night of the autopsy that a
tracheotomy obscured the throat wound, why didn't he then reach the
conclusion he eventually *did* reach: that the bullet had exited the
throat.
Given that the back wound was an entrance (with an abrasion collar)
and no bullet was found in the torso, it was the obvious one.
*If* you knew about a wound in the throat.

Get off it! There were 3 witnesses that made corroboration to the
fact that Humes knew DURING the autopsy, and probably before it, that the
tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound.

There was no path that led them to the trachea. Since the back wound
bullet never went there. The throat wound as an entrance wound, and had
been described at stellate and punctate both of which are signs of an
entry wound. Dr. Perry was convinced it was an entry and complained when
Bethesda wanted him to change his conclusion to it being an exit wound.

Amazing how you carefully try to pretend you didn't know that Dr.
Livingston called Humes and told him of the nearness of the tracheostomy
to the bullet wound in the neck. And of course, of the 2 others that also
knew that Bethesda got word from Perry of the overlay. You can pick,
pick, pick all you like but it only shows that you have realized you've
lost and you're just hoping for a miracle. There is no doubt that Humes
got the word from one of the others if they had been on the phone instead
of himself. But as the head of the autopsy, Humes was the one in charge
and was probably the one on the phone.

Post by mainframetech
BTW, the 'ice bullet' idea as from James Sibert, the FBI agent.

Sibert was only reporting what he heard the autopsy team hypothesize. He
was there as an observer, not to do any analysis on his own.

It doesn't matter what he was there for, he stated himself that he
raised the various theories himself and called about them.

Chris

Anthony Marsh

2018-07-30 15:06:44 UTC

On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot

Your problem is simple: if Humes knew the night of the autopsy that a
tracheotomy obscured the throat wound, why didn't he then reach the
conclusion he eventually *did* reach: that the bullet had exited the
throat.
Given that the back wound was an entrance (with an abrasion collar)
and no bullet was found in the torso, it was the obvious one.
*If* you knew about a wound in the throat.

Get off it! There were 3 witnesses that made corroboration to the
fact that Humes knew DURING the autopsy, and probably before it, that the
tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound. And if it wasn't Humes on the
phone when the info was mentioned, that person would pass it on to Humes,
who was nominally in charge of the autopsy. I don't know why you enjoy
skating on such thin ice.
BTW, the 'ice bullet' idea as from James Sibert, the FBI agent.
Chris

Read the damn documents and stop making up crap!

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=145280#relPageId=373&tab=page

NB: Sibert says he helped carry in the DAMAGED casket. Not a shipping
casket. The one they had damaged getting it into the plane and removed
from the plane and up in the Navy ambulance.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=145280#relPageId=383&tab=page

There was discussion that the bullet could have been a"plastic" type or
an "ice"

DISCUSSION
WITH THE DOCTORS

PAGE 7 is missing.

Sibert: I don't remember anything about a bullet - you know they couldn't
find that bullet wound in the back - and they probed that and there was no
exit. So, I said, "Well, let me go and call over at the lab, see if there
is any kind of an ice bullet that might have fragmentized completely" That
was when I called agent Killion over at the lab, and he said, "Have you
learned about the bullet they found under the stretcher over at Parkland?"
Now, I came back and reported that to Humes, the chief pathologist, and
that's the only - I never saw that bullet. They were sending that bullet
in, but it didn't come into the autopsy room. I think they flew it into
the Washington area, and that went directly to the FBI laboratory, the
firearms section.

Anthony Marsh

2018-07-29 18:22:32 UTC

On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot

Your problem is simple: if Humes knew the night of the autopsy that a
tracheotomy obscured the throat wound, why didn't he then reach the
conclusion he eventually *did* reach: that the bullet had exited the
throat.
Given that the back wound was an entrance (with an abrasion collar)
and no bullet was found in the torso, it was the obvious one.
*If* you knew about a wound in the throat.

DUH!
You just figured this out?
Are you remembering to factor in the fact that the autopsy doctors were
UNQUALIFIED? The Three Stooges. Your Federal Government at work.
But if you remember the Boston Globe drawing it reflects what they
thought very early in the autopsy because they did not even know about
the BACK wound yet.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Globe11-23-63.jpg

IF YOU are lucky enough to SEE both the back wound and the throat wound at
the same time do you think EVEN you would be smart enough to figure it
out? Bingo! You're more qualified than the autopsy doctors.

n***@gmail.com

2018-07-30 15:13:03 UTC

On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot

Your problem is simple: if Humes knew the night of the autopsy that a
tracheotomy obscured the throat wound, why didn't he then reach the
conclusion he eventually *did* reach: that the bullet had exited the
throat.
Given that the back wound was an entrance (with an abrasion collar)
and no bullet was found in the torso, it was the obvious one.
*If* you knew about a wound in the throat.

DUH!
You just figured this out?
Are you remembering to factor in the fact that the autopsy doctors were
UNQUALIFIED? The Three Stooges.

No. Three human beings trying to do their best under abnormal
circumstances. The irony is that you come across on here as Curly.

Mark

mainframetech

2018-07-28 04:08:53 UTC

On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot

Your problem is simple: if Humes knew the night of the autopsy that a
tracheotomy obscured the throat wound, why didn't he then reach the
conclusion he eventually *did* reach: that the bullet had exited the
throat.
Given that the back wound was an entrance (with an abrasion collar)
and no bullet was found in the torso, it was the obvious one.
*If* you knew about a wound in the throat.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

So to support the really odd circumstance of the SBT, you're willing
to throw away the 3 witnesses who corroborate each other. As to the lack
of a bullet from the torso, first, Humes had orders what to find and nor
find and what his Autopsy Report (AR) would say, and that had to include
removal of any bullets that may give away that other weapons besides
Oswald's MC rifle were used to kill JFK. The first step in the
clandestine work done on the body just after 6:35pm was X-rays to find
bullets. This is stated by the 2 X-ray Technicians.

Oddly enough though, One of the X-ray Technicians stated under oath,
the following:

""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."

Custer ARRB testimony, page 53

Sonometer = Centimeter

And then Custer made further statements about the same situation:

"Palamara: Were you aware of the allegations of—I don't know if it
was Admiral or Captain David Osborne—about the bullet falling out
of the body? During the autopsy? Did you see a whole bullet or a fragment
fall out of President Kennedy?
Custer: Well, I wouldn't call it a fragment, I'd say it was a pretty good
sized bullet. Because it created such a fuss. They ran over with a set of
forceps—and they grabbed it, picked it up and put it in a little
basin of water.
Law: Now is this the bullet—when you were doing the X-rays, and
you had him on the table and moving him around, didn't you tell me at some
point in an earlier conversation that a bullet fragment fell out of the
president?
Custer: This was the time that they found that.
Law: Okay. And what happened? What was their demeanor? What happened
when that bullet fragment fell out?
Custer: I called one of the pathologists over and said, "Hey, we have a
bullet here." Soon as they heard that, they came down off the raised
platform and they ran over and they picked it up. Then Sibert and O'Neill
also came over and said, "Well, we want that, that's—""
Palamara: Yes, they wrote out a receipt for a missile so people think it's
semantics— was it a fragment? So you're saying it wasn't a whole
bullet? It was a sizable fragment of a bullet?
Custer: It was about—see, you're getting in semantics here about
the size. It was distinguishable enough to know it was a bullet. It wasn't
complete because there was some fragmentation. Some area of destruction on
the bullet.
Law: Just for clarification, what area of the body did it fall out of?
Custer: That was the upper thorax. The upper back.
Law: It literally fell out of the back wound.
Custer: Right.
Law: Well now, the single-bullet theory would have you believe that the
bullet went in Kennedy's back, came out his throat, hit Connolly below the
right armpit,came out the right side of his chest, broke his right wrist,
and went into his left leg. So, if you're telling us that the bullet
fragment fell out of the back, that blows the single bullet theory to hell
right there.
Custer: Right.
Palamara: And also it was too low on the back to exit the neck.
Law: And you're absolutely certain that a bullet fragment fell out of the
back?
Custer: Absolutely.
Law: The back wound itself. No doubt about it.
Custer: Absolutely. Right. We lifted him up and boom. That's when it came
out.
Palamara: That's corroboration for David Osborne too.
Law: That would explain, "missile received" from Sibert and O'Neill.
Custer: Right.
Law: That's something that I've wanted to clear up."

"In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 132-133
online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf

I hope this helps. Law's book is straight Q and A with many of those
that were in the autopsy team, and he puts no spin on what they are
saying. He simply quotes them as they speak.

Chris

bigdog

2018-07-29 01:26:25 UTC

On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot

Your problem is simple: if Humes knew the night of the autopsy that a
tracheotomy obscured the throat wound, why didn't he then reach the
conclusion he eventually *did* reach: that the bullet had exited the
throat.
Given that the back wound was an entrance (with an abrasion collar)
and no bullet was found in the torso, it was the obvious one.
*If* you knew about a wound in the throat.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

So to support the really odd circumstance of the SBT, you're willing
to throw away the 3 witnesses who corroborate each other. As to the lack
of a bullet from the torso, first, Humes had orders what to find and nor
find and what his Autopsy Report (AR) would say, and that had to include
removal of any bullets that may give away that other weapons besides
Oswald's MC rifle were used to kill JFK. The first step in the
clandestine work done on the body just after 6:35pm was X-rays to find
bullets. This is stated by the 2 X-ray Technicians.
Oddly enough though, One of the X-ray Technicians stated under oath,
""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."
Custer ARRB testimony, page 53
Sonometer = Centimeter
"Palamara: Were you aware of the allegations of—I don't know if it
was Admiral or Captain David Osborne—about the bullet falling out
of the body? During the autopsy? Did you see a whole bullet or a fragment
fall out of President Kennedy?
Custer: Well, I wouldn't call it a fragment, I'd say it was a pretty good
sized bullet. Because it created such a fuss. They ran over with a set of
forceps—and they grabbed it, picked it up and put it in a little
basin of water.
Law: Now is this the bullet—when you were doing the X-rays, and
you had him on the table and moving him around, didn't you tell me at some
point in an earlier conversation that a bullet fragment fell out of the
president?
Custer: This was the time that they found that.
Law: Okay. And what happened? What was their demeanor? What happened
when that bullet fragment fell out?
Custer: I called one of the pathologists over and said, "Hey, we have a
bullet here." Soon as they heard that, they came down off the raised
platform and they ran over and they picked it up. Then Sibert and O'Neill
also came over and said, "Well, we want that, that's—""
Palamara: Yes, they wrote out a receipt for a missile so people think it's
semantics— was it a fragment? So you're saying it wasn't a whole
bullet? It was a sizable fragment of a bullet?
Custer: It was about—see, you're getting in semantics here about
the size. It was distinguishable enough to know it was a bullet. It wasn't
complete because there was some fragmentation. Some area of destruction on
the bullet.
Law: Just for clarification, what area of the body did it fall out of?
Custer: That was the upper thorax. The upper back.
Law: It literally fell out of the back wound.
Custer: Right.
Law: Well now, the single-bullet theory would have you believe that the
bullet went in Kennedy's back, came out his throat, hit Connolly below the
right armpit,came out the right side of his chest, broke his right wrist,
and went into his left leg. So, if you're telling us that the bullet
fragment fell out of the back, that blows the single bullet theory to hell
right there.
Custer: Right.
Palamara: And also it was too low on the back to exit the neck.
Law: And you're absolutely certain that a bullet fragment fell out of the
back?
Custer: Absolutely.
Law: The back wound itself. No doubt about it.
Custer: Absolutely. Right. We lifted him up and boom. That's when it came
out.
Palamara: That's corroboration for David Osborne too.
Law: That would explain, "missile received" from Sibert and O'Neill.
Custer: Right.
Law: That's something that I've wanted to clear up."
"In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 132-133
online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
I hope this helps. Law's book is straight Q and A with many of those
that were in the autopsy team, and he puts no spin on what they are
saying. He simply quotes them as they speak.

Amazing you put more faith in this bizarre tale by Custer than you do in
what everyone else in the room plus the gallery said. We are supposed to
believe that with all those people in the room plus the observation
gallery that nobody else so this bullet fall out of the wound. It's
preposterous to think that a bullet would make such a shallow penetration
that it could simply fall out because a bullet so weak could have never
reached the target. That defies the laws of physics.

Anthony Marsh

2018-07-30 15:07:09 UTC

On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot

Your problem is simple: if Humes knew the night of the autopsy that a
tracheotomy obscured the throat wound, why didn't he then reach the
conclusion he eventually *did* reach: that the bullet had exited the
throat.
Given that the back wound was an entrance (with an abrasion collar)
and no bullet was found in the torso, it was the obvious one.
*If* you knew about a wound in the throat.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

So to support the really odd circumstance of the SBT, you're willing
to throw away the 3 witnesses who corroborate each other. As to the lack
of a bullet from the torso, first, Humes had orders what to find and nor
find and what his Autopsy Report (AR) would say, and that had to include
removal of any bullets that may give away that other weapons besides
Oswald's MC rifle were used to kill JFK. The first step in the
clandestine work done on the body just after 6:35pm was X-rays to find
bullets. This is stated by the 2 X-ray Technicians.
Oddly enough though, One of the X-ray Technicians stated under oath,
""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."
Custer ARRB testimony, page 53
Sonometer = Centimeter
"Palamara: Were you aware of the allegations of???I don't know if it
was Admiral or Captain David Osborne???about the bullet falling out
of the body? During the autopsy? Did you see a whole bullet or a fragment
fall out of President Kennedy?
Custer: Well, I wouldn't call it a fragment, I'd say it was a pretty good
sized bullet. Because it created such a fuss. They ran over with a set of
forceps???and they grabbed it, picked it up and put it in a little
basin of water.
Law: Now is this the bullet???when you were doing the X-rays, and
you had him on the table and moving him around, didn't you tell me at some
point in an earlier conversation that a bullet fragment fell out of the
president?
Custer: This was the time that they found that.
Law: Okay. And what happened? What was their demeanor? What happened
when that bullet fragment fell out?
Custer: I called one of the pathologists over and said, "Hey, we have a
bullet here." Soon as they heard that, they came down off the raised
platform and they ran over and they picked it up. Then Sibert and O'Neill
also came over and said, "Well, we want that, that's???""
Palamara: Yes, they wrote out a receipt for a missile so people think it's
semantics??? was it a fragment? So you're saying it wasn't a whole
bullet? It was a sizable fragment of a bullet?
Custer: It was about???see, you're getting in semantics here about
the size. It was distinguishable enough to know it was a bullet. It wasn't
complete because there was some fragmentation. Some area of destruction on
the bullet.
Law: Just for clarification, what area of the body did it fall out of?
Custer: That was the upper thorax. The upper back.
Law: It literally fell out of the back wound.
Custer: Right.
Law: Well now, the single-bullet theory would have you believe that the
bullet went in Kennedy's back, came out his throat, hit Connolly below the
right armpit,came out the right side of his chest, broke his right wrist,
and went into his left leg. So, if you're telling us that the bullet
fragment fell out of the back, that blows the single bullet theory to hell
right there.
Custer: Right.
Palamara: And also it was too low on the back to exit the neck.
Law: And you're absolutely certain that a bullet fragment fell out of the
back?
Custer: Absolutely.
Law: The back wound itself. No doubt about it.
Custer: Absolutely. Right. We lifted him up and boom. That's when it came
out.
Palamara: That's corroboration for David Osborne too.
Law: That would explain, "missile received" from Sibert and O'Neill.
Custer: Right.
Law: That's something that I've wanted to clear up."
"In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 132-133
online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
I hope this helps. Law's book is straight Q and A with many of those
that were in the autopsy team, and he puts no spin on what they are
saying. He simply quotes them as they speak.

Duh! And the laws of ballistics. A bullet that weak could never even
get out of the barrel. Who would ever make ammo like that? The CIA?

Anthony Marsh

2018-07-30 15:07:46 UTC

On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot

Your problem is simple: if Humes knew the night of the autopsy that a
tracheotomy obscured the throat wound, why didn't he then reach the
conclusion he eventually *did* reach: that the bullet had exited the
throat.
Given that the back wound was an entrance (with an abrasion collar)
and no bullet was found in the torso, it was the obvious one.
*If* you knew about a wound in the throat.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

So to support the really odd circumstance of the SBT, you're willing
to throw away the 3 witnesses who corroborate each other. As to the lack
of a bullet from the torso, first, Humes had orders what to find and nor
find and what his Autopsy Report (AR) would say, and that had to include
removal of any bullets that may give away that other weapons besides
Oswald's MC rifle were used to kill JFK. The first step in the
clandestine work done on the body just after 6:35pm was X-rays to find
bullets. This is stated by the 2 X-ray Technicians.
Oddly enough though, One of the X-ray Technicians stated under oath,
""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."
Custer ARRB testimony, page 53
Sonometer = Centimeter
"Palamara: Were you aware of the allegations of???I don't know if it
was Admiral or Captain David Osborne???about the bullet falling out
of the body? During the autopsy? Did you see a whole bullet or a fragment
fall out of President Kennedy?
Custer: Well, I wouldn't call it a fragment, I'd say it was a pretty good
sized bullet. Because it created such a fuss. They ran over with a set of
forceps???and they grabbed it, picked it up and put it in a little
basin of water.
Law: Now is this the bullet???when you were doing the X-rays, and
you had him on the table and moving him around, didn't you tell me at some
point in an earlier conversation that a bullet fragment fell out of the
president?
Custer: This was the time that they found that.
Law: Okay. And what happened? What was their demeanor? What happened
when that bullet fragment fell out?
Custer: I called one of the pathologists over and said, "Hey, we have a
bullet here." Soon as they heard that, they came down off the raised
platform and they ran over and they picked it up. Then Sibert and O'Neill
also came over and said, "Well, we want that, that's???""
Palamara: Yes, they wrote out a receipt for a missile so people think it's
semantics??? was it a fragment? So you're saying it wasn't a whole
bullet? It was a sizable fragment of a bullet?
Custer: It was about???see, you're getting in semantics here about
the size. It was distinguishable enough to know it was a bullet. It wasn't
complete because there was some fragmentation. Some area of destruction on
the bullet.
Law: Just for clarification, what area of the body did it fall out of?
Custer: That was the upper thorax. The upper back.
Law: It literally fell out of the back wound.
Custer: Right.
Law: Well now, the single-bullet theory would have you believe that the
bullet went in Kennedy's back, came out his throat, hit Connolly below the
right armpit,came out the right side of his chest, broke his right wrist,
and went into his left leg. So, if you're telling us that the bullet
fragment fell out of the back, that blows the single bullet theory to hell
right there.
Custer: Right.
Palamara: And also it was too low on the back to exit the neck.
Law: And you're absolutely certain that a bullet fragment fell out of the
back?
Custer: Absolutely.
Law: The back wound itself. No doubt about it.
Custer: Absolutely. Right. We lifted him up and boom. That's when it came
out.
Palamara: That's corroboration for David Osborne too.
Law: That would explain, "missile received" from Sibert and O'Neill.
Custer: Right.
Law: That's something that I've wanted to clear up."
"In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 132-133
online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
I hope this helps. Law's book is straight Q and A with many of those
that were in the autopsy team, and he puts no spin on what they are
saying. He simply quotes them as they speak.

More bullshit. Another phony Argument by Authority.
Name every person in the observation gallery and post ALL their
statements and testimony.

Post by bigdog
preposterous to think that a bullet would make such a shallow penetration
that it could simply fall out because a bullet so weak could have never
reached the target. That defies the laws of physics.

Or even make it out of the barrel.

mainframetech

2018-07-31 01:20:51 UTC

On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot

Your problem is simple: if Humes knew the night of the autopsy that a
tracheotomy obscured the throat wound, why didn't he then reach the
conclusion he eventually *did* reach: that the bullet had exited the
throat.
Given that the back wound was an entrance (with an abrasion collar)
and no bullet was found in the torso, it was the obvious one.
*If* you knew about a wound in the throat.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

So to support the really odd circumstance of the SBT, you're willing
to throw away the 3 witnesses who corroborate each other. As to the lack
of a bullet from the torso, first, Humes had orders what to find and nor
find and what his Autopsy Report (AR) would say, and that had to include
removal of any bullets that may give away that other weapons besides
Oswald's MC rifle were used to kill JFK. The first step in the
clandestine work done on the body just after 6:35pm was X-rays to find
bullets. This is stated by the 2 X-ray Technicians.
Oddly enough though, One of the X-ray Technicians stated under oath,
""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."
Custer ARRB testimony, page 53
Sonometer = Centimeter
"Palamara: Were you aware of the allegations of—I don't know if it
was Admiral or Captain David Osborne—about the bullet falling out
of the body? During the autopsy? Did you see a whole bullet or a fragment
fall out of President Kennedy?
Custer: Well, I wouldn't call it a fragment, I'd say it was a pretty good
sized bullet. Because it created such a fuss. They ran over with a set of
forceps—and they grabbed it, picked it up and put it in a little
basin of water.
Law: Now is this the bullet—when you were doing the X-rays, and
you had him on the table and moving him around, didn't you tell me at some
point in an earlier conversation that a bullet fragment fell out of the
president?
Custer: This was the time that they found that.
Law: Okay. And what happened? What was their demeanor? What happened
when that bullet fragment fell out?
Custer: I called one of the pathologists over and said, "Hey, we have a
bullet here." Soon as they heard that, they came down off the raised
platform and they ran over and they picked it up. Then Sibert and O'Neill
also came over and said, "Well, we want that, that's—""
Palamara: Yes, they wrote out a receipt for a missile so people think it's
semantics— was it a fragment? So you're saying it wasn't a whole
bullet? It was a sizable fragment of a bullet?
Custer: It was about—see, you're getting in semantics here about
the size. It was distinguishable enough to know it was a bullet. It wasn't
complete because there was some fragmentation. Some area of destruction on
the bullet.
Law: Just for clarification, what area of the body did it fall out of?
Custer: That was the upper thorax. The upper back.
Law: It literally fell out of the back wound.
Custer: Right.
Law: Well now, the single-bullet theory would have you believe that the
bullet went in Kennedy's back, came out his throat, hit Connolly below the
right armpit,came out the right side of his chest, broke his right wrist,
and went into his left leg. So, if you're telling us that the bullet
fragment fell out of the back, that blows the single bullet theory to hell
right there.
Custer: Right.
Palamara: And also it was too low on the back to exit the neck.
Law: And you're absolutely certain that a bullet fragment fell out of the
back?
Custer: Absolutely.
Law: The back wound itself. No doubt about it.
Custer: Absolutely. Right. We lifted him up and boom. That's when it came
out.
Palamara: That's corroboration for David Osborne too.
Law: That would explain, "missile received" from Sibert and O'Neill.
Custer: Right.
Law: That's something that I've wanted to clear up."
"In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 132-133
online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
I hope this helps. Law's book is straight Q and A with many of those
that were in the autopsy team, and he puts no spin on what they are
saying. He simply quotes them as they speak.

Whether something else was holding people's attention or not we don't
know. But Custer spoke under oath. And he had no reason to make up such
a story. Custer said he had to call attention to the bullet, so the
others may indeed have been doing something else. The disappearing of the
bullet fits with the orders that Humes and the other prosectors must have
gotten before hand to remove bullets, and modify the body as much as time
allowed.

Chris

David Von Pein

2018-07-28 20:04:01 UTC

On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot

Your problem is simple: if Humes knew the night of the autopsy that a
tracheotomy obscured the throat wound, why didn't he then reach the
conclusion he eventually *did* reach: that the bullet had exited the
throat.
Given that the back wound was an entrance (with an abrasion collar)
and no bullet was found in the torso, it was the obvious one.
*If* you knew about a wound in the throat.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Everything Dr. Humes did during the autopsy on 11/22/63 at Bethesda, while
President Kennedy's body was lying on the autopsy table, indicates that
Dr. Humes did NOT positively know that there was a bullet hole in JFK's
throat.

And we don't have to take *just* Dr. Humes' word for this. We also have
the Sibert/O'Neill report to guide us, too. In that report written by FBI
agents James Sibert and Francis O'Neill on November 22, 1963 (and dictated
on November 26, 1963) [ARRB MD 44], it states the following on Page 4:

"Inasmuch as no complete bullet of any size could be located in the brain
area and likewise no bullet could be located in the back or any other area
of the body as determined by total body X-Rays and inspection revealing
there was no point of exit, the individuals performing the autopsy were at
a loss to explain why they could find no bullets."

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md44/html/Image4.htm

Therefore, via the above excerpt that comes from the report written by FBI
agents Sibert and O'Neill, it's quite clear that the autopsy doctors
(including James J. Humes) were not fully aware during the course of the
autopsy of the existence of the bullet hole in the lower part of President
Kennedy's throat.

In addition, the Sibert/O'Neill report also states on Page 3 that
President Kennedy's body had undergone "surgery of the head area". And we
know from later interviews with James Sibert that the "surgery of the head
area" remark had come straight from the mouth of Dr. James Humes himself.

Now, I ask this: If Dr. Humes had been part of a covert plot to secretly
alter John F. Kennedy's head wounds (and according to Douglas P. Horne,
Humes DID alter the President's head wounds), then why on Earth would
Humes have uttered aloud that there had been apparent "surgery of the head
area"? It makes no sense.

David Von Pein
June 17, 2015

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-958.html

Anthony Marsh

2018-07-29 22:10:19 UTC

On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot

Your problem is simple: if Humes knew the night of the autopsy that a
tracheotomy obscured the throat wound, why didn't he then reach the
conclusion he eventually *did* reach: that the bullet had exited the
throat.
Given that the back wound was an entrance (with an abrasion collar)
and no bullet was found in the torso, it was the obvious one.
*If* you knew about a wound in the throat.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Because the were incompetent. So Humes GUESSED it might have been an ICE
BULLET. In a legal autopsy you don't just guess. You examine. Autopsy
means to SEE.

To be fair to Humes he also knew nothing about bullets. It might be avery
low velocity bullet which just falls out.

Post by David Von Pein
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md44/html/Image4.htm
Therefore, via the above excerpt that comes from the report written by FBI
agents Sibert and O'Neill, it's quite clear that the autopsy doctors
(including James J. Humes) were not fully aware during the course of the
autopsy of the existence of the bullet hole in the lower part of President
Kennedy's throat.

Well, and the fact they they wee unqualified to examine the X-rays so
they didn't see the hairline fracture of T-1 which might show that a
bullet grazed it and its path would be deflected.

Post by David Von Pein
In addition, the Sibert/O'Neill report also states on Page 3 that
President Kennedy's body had undergone "surgery of the head area". And we

No. It just appeared that way to Humes because of the gauze suares left
in the head wound.

Stop changing words in official documents. Don't try to be a mainframe
tech.

Post by David Von Pein
know from later interviews with James Sibert that the "surgery of the head
area" remark had come straight from the mouth of Dr. James Humes himself.
Now, I ask this: If Dr. Humes had been part of a covert plot to secretly
alter John F. Kennedy's head wounds (and according to Douglas P. Horne,
Humes DID alter the President's head wounds), then why on Earth would
Humes have uttered aloud that there had been apparent "surgery of the head
area"? It makes no sense.

That makes too much sense. Like if Trump were guilty of collusion, Putin
would not be stupid ebough to admit it on live TV that he had helped
Trump's campaign. Especially not on live TV where they can't snip it out
before broadcast. Oh snap, that's just what they did.

But to your point, Humes did not do any pre-autopsy surgery. Not enough
time and he was too stupid to know what to do.

Post by David Von Pein
David Von Pein
June 17, 2015
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-958.html

mainframetech

2018-07-31 01:22:01 UTC

On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot

Your problem is simple: if Humes knew the night of the autopsy that a
tracheotomy obscured the throat wound, why didn't he then reach the
conclusion he eventually *did* reach: that the bullet had exited the
throat.
Given that the back wound was an entrance (with an abrasion collar)
and no bullet was found in the torso, it was the obvious one.
*If* you knew about a wound in the throat.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

And yet we have 3 witnesses that he DID know. One of whom was on the
autopsy team (Ebersole).

Post by David Von Pein
And we don't have to take *just* Dr. Humes' word for this. We also have
the Sibert/O'Neill report to guide us, too. In that report written by FBI
agents James Sibert and Francis O'Neill on November 22, 1963 (and dictated
"Inasmuch as no complete bullet of any size could be located in the brain
area and likewise no bullet could be located in the back or any other area
of the body as determined by total body X-Rays and inspection revealing
there was no point of exit, the individuals performing the autopsy were at
a loss to explain why they could find no bullets."
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md44/html/Image4.htm
Therefore, via the above excerpt that comes from the report written by FBI
agents Sibert and O'Neill, it's quite clear that the autopsy doctors
(including James J. Humes) were not fully aware during the course of the
autopsy of the existence of the bullet hole in the lower part of President
Kennedy's throat.

The Sibert and O'Neill report doesn't say anything about whether a
back wound was known to them or not. It says bullets were not found,
which does NOT say there was no info about a tracheotomy overlaying a
bullet wound. DVP may have gone astray here.

Post by David Von Pein
In addition, the Sibert/O'Neill report also states on Page 3 that
President Kennedy's body had undergone "surgery of the head area". And we
know from later interviews with James Sibert that the "surgery of the head
area" remark had come straight from the mouth of Dr. James Humes himself.
Now, I ask this: If Dr. Humes had been part of a covert plot to secretly
alter John F. Kennedy's head wounds (and according to Douglas P. Horne,
Humes DID alter the President's head wounds), then why on Earth would
Humes have uttered aloud that there had been apparent "surgery of the head
area"? It makes no sense.

Of course it made no sense to DVP, but it could make sense if Humes
was trying to cover up his own work on the skull. He was seen using a
bone saw by at least 2 eyewitnesses Tom Robinson the mortician, and Edward
Reed, X-ray Technician. They saw him removing the brain, which should
have been done at the scheduled autopsy at 8:00pm. Instead they were
doing it at just after 6:35pm when the body arrived.

I believe from much other evidence, that they had orders to remove all
bullets and fragments of any kind, so as to remove the possibility of them
finding a bullet later that said a different than the MC rifle fired at
the target.

For further cover up, Humes also took out the brain at the scheduled
autopsy, and because it was so easy, he humorously commented that "it
practically fell out into my hands". That was a bad attempt to make it
look like it was a surprise to him, when earlier HE had ben the one to
take out the brain. At the scheduled autopsy, it was easy to take it out
because the spinal cord had been cut and the optic nerves and some of the
major arteries as well. All those had to be cut to remove the brain.

Chris

Ace Kefford

2018-07-31 01:31:39 UTC

On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot

Your problem is simple: if Humes knew the night of the autopsy that a
tracheotomy obscured the throat wound, why didn't he then reach the
conclusion he eventually *did* reach: that the bullet had exited the
throat.
Given that the back wound was an entrance (with an abrasion collar)
and no bullet was found in the torso, it was the obvious one.
*If* you knew about a wound in the throat.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

John, don't befuddle 'em with yer logik.

The buffs don't seem to realize that if Humes was positive on the front
throat exit that night, then it makes no sense that he would have
suppressed that. Although I'm sure the buffs have their backflipping,
multi-level, geometric logic explanation, no doubt requiring conspirators
and blackmailed folks in the dozens at least and fully malleable evidence.

In buff world, heads I win, tails you lose.

bigdog

2018-07-27 21:10:03 UTC

On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot

WRONG as usual! Your lack of knowledge about this case leads you
into trouble often. Here are 3 witnesses proving that Humes knew the day
of the murder that a tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound in the
throat.
1. Dr. Livingston - http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
2. Dr. Ebersole
"After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole,
MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, “Ebersole had told me
during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound
from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he
had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy
– that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that
intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound –
corresponding to the back entrance wound – was
solved.”[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two
hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm
3. Nurse Audrey Bell -
"Given permission, she continues, “Saturday morning when I got
over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of
course he had been primary until Dr. Clark came … He sat down in a
chair. I said, ‘You look awful. Did you get any sleep last
night?’ And he said, ‘Well, not too much between the calls
from Bethesda that came in during the night.’ I said,
‘What about?’ He said, ‘Oh. Whether that was an
entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat.’ He said,
‘They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance
wound.’” [31] Nurse Bell clarifies that her exchange with
Dr. Perry occurred in the morning, before he decamped just after the
Saturday press conference, during which he was silent after telling Dr.
Kemp Clark what Humes had told him, and asking Clark to take over for him
to avoid having to lie at the Saturday afternoon press conference. Chalk
up another perjury for Humes, who testified that he did not discuss the
results of the autopsy with Dr. Perry. [32] The frosting on the cover-up
cake may now be tasted. Perry talked to Humes on Friday and told him that
the throat wound was an entrance wound, as did Dr. Livingston, and almost
certainly others."
From: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html
Humes knew about the tracheostomy during the autopsy. Try and get it
right next time.

You are quoting Ebersole here. You quoted Mantik in your previous post,
not Ebersole. In neither version does Ebersole say Humes spoke to Perry on
Friday night. Nobody has said that.

Post by mainframetech
Now Livingston had a way of knowing things, called a telephone,

Do you have any evidence Livingston spoke by phone to anybody at Parkland?
Didn't think so. Why would just assume such a conversation took place? Oh,
that's right. You need that to be true for you theories to hold water.

Post by mainframetech
but
his video said he told Humes that there was a bullet entrance near to the
tracheotomy. It was enough for Humes to figure out that they overlapped
once he saw the throat. However, here are the words also of Dr. Perry at
"Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations
with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital?
Dr. PERRY - Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - When did that conversation occur?
Dr. PERRY - My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in
doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but
I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have an independent recollection at this moment as to
whether it was on Friday or Saturday?
Dr. PERRY - No, sir; I have thought about it again and the events surrounding
that weekend were very kaleidoscopic, and I talked with Dr. Humes on two
occasions, separated by a very short interval of, I think it was, 30 minutes
or an hour or so, it could have been a little longer.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the medium of your conversation?
Dr. PERRY - Over the telephone.
Mr. SPECTER - Did he identify himself to you as Dr. Humes of Bethesda?
Dr. PERRY - He did.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you state as specifically as you can recollect the
conversation that you first had with him?
Dr. PERRY - He advised me that he could not discuss with me the findings of
necropsy, that he had a few questions he would like to clarify. The initial
phone call was in relation to my doing a tracheotomy. Since I had made the
incision directly through the wound in the neck, it made it difficult for
them to ascertain the exact nature of this wound. Of course, that did not
occur to me at the time."
Note that Perry's first impression was that he spoke with Humes Friday
night, but it sounds like someone told him it was Saturday later.

If Perry had a clear recollection of speaking to Humes on Friday night, he
wouldn't have needed anyone to tell him when that conversation occurred. I
have no doubt that Perry spoke to someone at Bethesda on Friday night but
there is no testimony from anyone that it was Humes he spoke to. Whomever
he spoke to, that would have been to confirm what the autopsy team already
suspected when the traced the track of the tissue damage from the back
wound to the trachea, that a tracheostomy had obliterated the exit wound.
That solved the puzzle for why they had an entrance wound with no apparent
exit and no bullet in the body. Once Perry confirmed what they already
suspected, they had their exit wound.

Post by mainframetech
The third person was Nurse Audrey Bell, who heard the complaints of
DR. Perry, who aid he was getting calls from Humes at night. So that fits
with Perry's first impression.

Why do you keep twisting the words of the witnesses you cite. Audrey Bell
did NOT say Perry told her he talked to Humes the night before. He told
her he had talked to someone at Bethesda. Her testimony does not indicate
that someone was Humes. That was your insertion to misrepresent what Bell
actually said. Why do you continually have to modify what witnesses have
said to try to make your theories hold water?

mainframetech

2018-07-29 18:13:29 UTC

On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot

WRONG as usual! Your lack of knowledge about this case leads you
into trouble often. Here are 3 witnesses proving that Humes knew the day
of the murder that a tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound in the
throat.
1. Dr. Livingston - http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
2. Dr. Ebersole
"After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole,
MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, “Ebersole had told me
during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound
from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he
had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy
– that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that
intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound –
corresponding to the back entrance wound – was
solved.”[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two
hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm
3. Nurse Audrey Bell -
"Given permission, she continues, “Saturday morning when I got
over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of
course he had been primary until Dr. Clark came … He sat down in a
chair. I said, ‘You look awful. Did you get any sleep last
night?’ And he said, ‘Well, not too much between the calls
from Bethesda that came in during the night.’ I said,
‘What about?’ He said, ‘Oh. Whether that was an
entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat.’ He said,
‘They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance
wound.’” [31] Nurse Bell clarifies that her exchange with
Dr. Perry occurred in the morning, before he decamped just after the
Saturday press conference, during which he was silent after telling Dr.
Kemp Clark what Humes had told him, and asking Clark to take over for him
to avoid having to lie at the Saturday afternoon press conference. Chalk
up another perjury for Humes, who testified that he did not discuss the
results of the autopsy with Dr. Perry. [32] The frosting on the cover-up
cake may now be tasted. Perry talked to Humes on Friday and told him that
the throat wound was an entrance wound, as did Dr. Livingston, and almost
certainly others."
From: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html
Humes knew about the tracheostomy during the autopsy. Try and get it
right next time.

You are quoting Ebersole here. You quoted Mantik in your previous post,
not Ebersole. In neither version does Ebersole say Humes spoke to Perry on
Friday night. Nobody has said that.

Pick, pick, pick. You'll never get it that way. You need to apply
your brain.

Post by mainframetech
Now Livingston had a way of knowing things, called a telephone,

Do you have ANY evidence that Livingston did NOT speak to Humes as he
said he did? No? Didn't think so. What crap! You think the telephone
wasn't invented in 1963? Livingston stated he spoke with Humes and
explained the tracheotomy to him that was near the bullet hole. What's
the matter with you? I'm not giving you "theories", I'm giving you direct
testimony of eyewitnesses they were involved in the events they
described.

The guy stated in a video that he spoke with Humes. If you have
doubts and think he is lying, then say so, give your proof, and stop all
the pussyfooting around.

If Perry had a clear recollection of speaking to Humes on Friday night, he
wouldn't have needed anyone to tell him when that conversation occurred.

WRONG! You don't know that. And Audrey Bell wasn't the only one who
corroborated the information that Perry talked to Bethesda on Friday
night. I have no patience with you on this score, as with many that you
constantly repeat over and over just to get your name on the boards and
have another chance to argue and relive your loss of yet another argument.
If Perry talked to someone from Bethesda in the evening, then do you think
that person would NOT tell Humes? Ridiculous!

Post by bigdog
I
have no doubt that Perry spoke to someone at Bethesda on Friday night but
there is no testimony from anyone that it was Humes he spoke to.

See above.

WRONG! Nurse Audrey Bell stated that Perry had talked to Bethesda.

Post by bigdog
Whomever
he spoke to, that would have been to confirm what the autopsy team already
suspected when the traced the track of the tissue damage from the back
wound to the trachea, that a tracheostomy had obliterated the exit wound.
That solved the puzzle for why they had an entrance wound with no apparent
exit and no bullet in the body. Once Perry confirmed what they already
suspected, they had their exit wound.

WRONG! At NO TIME did the prosectors dissect the path of the back
wound bullet and prove that it went to the throat wound and out. And the
AR agrees with that.

Post by mainframetech
The third person was Nurse Audrey Bell, who heard the complaints of
DR. Perry, who said he was getting calls from Humes at night. So that fits
with Perry's first impression.

I also deal in common sense and not in pick, pick, pick. No matter
who Perry talked to at Bethesda, they would pass on the info to Humes, who
was nominally in charge of the autopsy.

Chris

Anthony Marsh

2018-07-30 15:08:19 UTC

On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot

WRONG as usual! Your lack of knowledge about this case leads you
into trouble often. Here are 3 witnesses proving that Humes knew the day
of the murder that a tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound in the
throat.
1. Dr. Livingston - http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
2. Dr. Ebersole
"After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole,
MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, ???Ebersole had told me
during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound
from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he
had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy
??? that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that
intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound ???
corresponding to the back entrance wound ??? was
solved.???[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two
hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm
3. Nurse Audrey Bell -
"Given permission, she continues, ???Saturday morning when I got
over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of
course he had been primary until Dr. Clark came ??? He sat down in a
chair. I said, ???You look awful. Did you get any sleep last
night???? And he said, ???Well, not too much between the calls
from Bethesda that came in during the night.??? I said,
???What about???? He said, ???Oh. Whether that was an
entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat.??? He said,
???They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance
wound.?????? [31] Nurse Bell clarifies that her exchange with
Dr. Perry occurred in the morning, before he decamped just after the
Saturday press conference, during which he was silent after telling Dr.
Kemp Clark what Humes had told him, and asking Clark to take over for him
to avoid having to lie at the Saturday afternoon press conference. Chalk
up another perjury for Humes, who testified that he did not discuss the
results of the autopsy with Dr. Perry. [32] The frosting on the cover-up
cake may now be tasted. Perry talked to Humes on Friday and told him that
the throat wound was an entrance wound, as did Dr. Livingston, and almost
certainly others."
From: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html
Humes knew about the tracheostomy during the autopsy. Try and get it
right next time.

You are quoting Ebersole here. You quoted Mantik in your previous post,
not Ebersole. In neither version does Ebersole say Humes spoke to Perry on
Friday night. Nobody has said that.

Pick, pick, pick. You'll never get it that way. You need to apply
your brain.

Post by mainframetech
Now Livingston had a way of knowing things, called a telephone,

Do you have ANY evidence that Livingston did NOT speak to Humes as he
said he did? No? Didn't think so. What crap! You think the telephone

Argumentum ad Ignrantiam. It's not up to us to disprove your shit. It's
up to you to prove it.
#Dont be a McAdams.

Post by mainframetech
wasn't invented in 1963? Livingston stated he spoke with Humes and
explained the tracheotomy to him that was near the bullet hole. What's
the matter with you? I'm not giving you "theories", I'm giving you direct
testimony of eyewitnesses they were involved in the events they
described.
The guy stated in a video that he spoke with Humes. If you have
doubts and think he is lying, then say so, give your proof, and stop all
the pussyfooting around.

If Perry had a clear recollection of speaking to Humes on Friday night, he
wouldn't have needed anyone to tell him when that conversation occurred.

Post by bigdog
I
have no doubt that Perry spoke to someone at Bethesda on Friday night but
there is no testimony from anyone that it was Humes he spoke to.

See above.
WRONG! Nurse Audrey Bell stated that Perry had talked to Bethesda.

WRONG! At NO TIME did the prosectors dissect the path of the back
wound bullet and prove that it went to the throat wound and out. And the
AR agrees with that.

Post by mainframetech
The third person was Nurse Audrey Bell, who heard the complaints of
DR. Perry, who said he was getting calls from Humes at night. So that fits
with Perry's first impression.

I also deal in common sense and not in pick, pick, pick. No matter
who Perry talked to at Bethesda, they would pass on the info to Humes, who
was nominally in charge of the autopsy.
Chris

Steve M. Galbraith

2018-07-30 01:59:02 UTC

On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot

WRONG as usual! Your lack of knowledge about this case leads you
into trouble often. Here are 3 witnesses proving that Humes knew the day
of the murder that a tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound in the
throat.
1. Dr. Livingston - http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
2. Dr. Ebersole
"After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole,
MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, “Ebersole had told me
during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound
from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he
had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy
– that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that
intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound –
corresponding to the back entrance wound – was
solved.”[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two
hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm
3. Nurse Audrey Bell -
"Given permission, she continues, “Saturday morning when I got
over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of
course he had been primary until Dr. Clark came … He sat down in a
chair. I said, ‘You look awful. Did you get any sleep last
night?’ And he said, ‘Well, not too much between the calls
from Bethesda that came in during the night.’ I said,
‘What about?’ He said, ‘Oh. Whether that was an
entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat.’ He said,
‘They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance
wound.’” [31] Nurse Bell clarifies that her exchange with
Dr. Perry occurred in the morning, before he decamped just after the
Saturday press conference, during which he was silent after telling Dr.
Kemp Clark what Humes had told him, and asking Clark to take over for him
to avoid having to lie at the Saturday afternoon press conference. Chalk
up another perjury for Humes, who testified that he did not discuss the
results of the autopsy with Dr. Perry. [32] The frosting on the cover-up
cake may now be tasted. Perry talked to Humes on Friday and told him that
the throat wound was an entrance wound, as did Dr. Livingston, and almost
certainly others."
From: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html
Humes knew about the tracheostomy during the autopsy. Try and get it
right next time.

You are quoting Ebersole here. You quoted Mantik in your previous post,
not Ebersole. In neither version does Ebersole say Humes spoke to Perry on
Friday night. Nobody has said that.

Post by mainframetech
Now Livingston had a way of knowing things, called a telephone,

Post by mainframetech
The third person was Nurse Audrey Bell, who heard the complaints of
DR. Perry, who aid he was getting calls from Humes at night. So that fits
with Perry's first impression.

BD this statement is simply not, in my opinion, supported by the evidence.
You wrote: '[T]hat would have been to confirm what the autopsy team
already suspected when the traced the track of the tissue damage from the
back wound to the trachea..."

Where is the evidence they "suspected" this? The evidence for me indicates
they - Humes et al. - gave up trying to figure out where the bullet went.

From Humes and Boswell's JAMA interview: "The second bullet was more of a
puzzle. 'If we made a mistake,' Humes says, 'it was in NOT calling Dallas
before we started the autopsy. Our information from Parkland Hospital in
Dallas before we started the autopsy was zero.'

Humes again: "The tracheostomy was a gaping wound, about 3 to 4 centimere
around, and we didn't think of it as an exit wound... We also noted
damages to the neck muscles, trachea, and pleura, but there was no bullet.
It was bothering me very greatly, like nothing you can imagine, that we
could find neither the second bullet nor its track. 'J' and I both knew
that bullets can do funny things in the body and we thought it might have
deflected down to the extremities."

Key statement by Humes: "By midnight, we decided it was time to quit
speculating about the second bullet, and I am very comfortable with this
decision....By midnight our task was done - it was perfectly obvious what
had killed the man. The second bullet was important, but not of overriding
importance. WE KNEW THAT WE WOULD FIND THE EXPLANATION SOONER OR LATER."

It's clear from Humes' own words that they didn't know - or even suspect -
that the tracheostomy covered a bullet wound.

Full JAMA piece is here: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md22/html/Image00.htm

bigdog

2018-07-30 21:33:22 UTC

On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot

WRONG as usual! Your lack of knowledge about this case leads you
into trouble often. Here are 3 witnesses proving that Humes knew the day
of the murder that a tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound in the
throat.
1. Dr. Livingston - http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
2. Dr. Ebersole
"After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole,
MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, “Ebersole had told me
during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound
from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he
had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy
– that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that
intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound –
corresponding to the back entrance wound – was
solved.”[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two
hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm
3. Nurse Audrey Bell -
"Given permission, she continues, “Saturday morning when I got
over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of
course he had been primary until Dr. Clark came … He sat down in a
chair. I said, ‘You look awful. Did you get any sleep last
night?’ And he said, ‘Well, not too much between the calls
from Bethesda that came in during the night.’ I said,
‘What about?’ He said, ‘Oh. Whether that was an
entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat.’ He said,
‘They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance
wound.’” [31] Nurse Bell clarifies that her exchange with
Dr. Perry occurred in the morning, before he decamped just after the
Saturday press conference, during which he was silent after telling Dr.
Kemp Clark what Humes had told him, and asking Clark to take over for him
to avoid having to lie at the Saturday afternoon press conference. Chalk
up another perjury for Humes, who testified that he did not discuss the
results of the autopsy with Dr. Perry. [32] The frosting on the cover-up
cake may now be tasted. Perry talked to Humes on Friday and told him that
the throat wound was an entrance wound, as did Dr. Livingston, and almost
certainly others."
From: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html
Humes knew about the tracheostomy during the autopsy. Try and get it
right next time.

You are quoting Ebersole here. You quoted Mantik in your previous post,
not Ebersole. In neither version does Ebersole say Humes spoke to Perry on
Friday night. Nobody has said that.

Post by mainframetech
Now Livingston had a way of knowing things, called a telephone,

Post by mainframetech
The third person was Nurse Audrey Bell, who heard the complaints of
DR. Perry, who aid he was getting calls from Humes at night. So that fits
with Perry's first impression.

Read Ebersole's testimony to the HSCA. I went to McAdams' assassination
witness page and clicked the link for his deposition but got a message
that said it was not found. Perhaps it is temporarily down. I've used it
in the past. If not maybe you can find another source. In any case they
would have to have been pretty stupid if they noted that the tissue damage
went from the back wound to the damaged trachea and not at least suspected
the bullet exited at the point of the trachea incision.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
From Humes and Boswell's JAMA interview: "The second bullet was more of a
puzzle. 'If we made a mistake,' Humes says, 'it was in NOT calling Dallas
before we started the autopsy. Our information from Parkland Hospital in
Dallas before we started the autopsy was zero.'

That part is true. It is also true that they began communications with
Parkland during the autopsy.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Humes again: "The tracheostomy was a gaping wound, about 3 to 4 centimere
around, and we didn't think of it as an exit wound... We also noted
damages to the neck muscles, trachea, and pleura, but there was no bullet.
It was bothering me very greatly, like nothing you can imagine, that we
could find neither the second bullet nor its track. 'J' and I both knew
that bullets can do funny things in the body and we thought it might have
deflected down to the extremities."
Key statement by Humes: "By midnight, we decided it was time to quit
speculating about the second bullet, and I am very comfortable with this
decision....By midnight our task was done - it was perfectly obvious what
had killed the man. The second bullet was important, but not of overriding
importance. WE KNEW THAT WE WOULD FIND THE EXPLANATION SOONER OR LATER."
It's clear from Humes' own words that they didn't know - or even suspect -
that the tracheostomy covered a bullet wound.
Full JAMA piece is here: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md22/html/Image00.htm

What is clear to me is they were very confused at first but by the time
they were finished they at least suspected the bullet had exited the
throat. Apparently Humes wanted to confirm that with Perry, hence his
statement that sooner or later they would find the explanation. In short,
they couldn't conclude an exit from the throat based solely on what they
saw but they believed speaking to Perry would clear up the mystery. If he
wasn't confident of that, why would he say that sooner or later they would
have the explanation.

John McAdams

2018-07-30 21:44:07 UTC

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Where is the evidence they "suspected" this? The evidence for me indicates
they - Humes et al. - gave up trying to figure out where the bullet went.

Read Ebersole's testimony to the HSCA. I went to McAdams' assassination
witness page and clicked the link for his deposition but got a message
that said it was not found.

http://web.archive.org/web/20031224195057/http://www.geocities.com:80/jfkinfo3/testimony/ebersole.htm

Post by bigdog
Perhaps it is temporarily down. I've used it
in the past. If not maybe you can find another source. In any case they
would have to have been pretty stupid if they noted that the tissue damage
went from the back wound to the damaged trachea and not at least suspected
the bullet exited at the point of the trachea incision.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

bigdog

2018-07-31 14:47:26 UTC

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Where is the evidence they "suspected" this? The evidence for me indicates
they - Humes et al. - gave up trying to figure out where the bullet went.

Read Ebersole's testimony to the HSCA. I went to McAdams' assassination
witness page and clicked the link for his deposition but got a message
that said it was not found.

http://web.archive.org/web/20031224195057/http://www.geocities.com:80/jfkinfo3/testimony/ebersole.htm

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Thanks, John.

This is the pertinent passage from Dr. Ebersole's deposition.

Mr. PURDY. One other question I have has to do with the nature of the
information you received from other sources on the night of the autopsy.
You mentioned a phone call which helped clear up confusion.
Dr. EBERSOLE. Somewhere in the course of the evening Dr. Humes received
information from Dallas re the procedures that had been carried out there,
number one. Number two, somewhere in the course of the evening Dallas sent
to us the bony fragments you saw which were X rayed as to how this was
carried out. The mechanics I don't know. Somewhere in the course of the
autopsy Dr. Humes was made aware of the surgical procedures at Dallas
vis-a-vis the neck.
Mr. PURDY. And what was that information?
Dr. EBERSOLE. The information was that there had been a wound of exit there,
a tracheotomy and a suturing done.
Mr. PURDY. Do you recall how that information was conveyed to Dr. Humes?
Dr. EBERSOLE. I don't. I don't recall.

There are two key points here. One is that Humes learned of tracheostomy
over the bullet hole at sometime during the evening. Although not specific
about the time, it seems likely it was in the latter stages. The other is
that Ebersole's testimony does not support Chris's contention that Humes
spoke directly to Perry that evening. He simply didn't recall how Humes
received the information. While Ebersole's statement doesn't preclude the
possibility of direct communication between the two, he can't be cited as
a source that supports that such a conversation took place.

John McAdams

2018-07-31 14:49:14 UTC

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Where is the evidence they "suspected" this? The evidence for me indicates
they - Humes et al. - gave up trying to figure out where the bullet went.

Read Ebersole's testimony to the HSCA. I went to McAdams' assassination
witness page and clicked the link for his deposition but got a message
that said it was not found.

http://web.archive.org/web/20031224195057/http://www.geocities.com:80/jfkinfo3/testimony/ebersole.htm

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Thanks, John.
This is the pertinent passage from Dr. Ebersole's deposition.
Mr. PURDY. One other question I have has to do with the nature of the
information you received from other sources on the night of the autopsy.
You mentioned a phone call which helped clear up confusion.
Dr. EBERSOLE. Somewhere in the course of the evening Dr. Humes received
information from Dallas re the procedures that had been carried out there,
number one. Number two, somewhere in the course of the evening Dallas sent
to us the bony fragments you saw which were X rayed as to how this was
carried out. The mechanics I don't know. Somewhere in the course of the
autopsy Dr. Humes was made aware of the surgical procedures at Dallas
vis-a-vis the neck.
Mr. PURDY. And what was that information?
Dr. EBERSOLE. The information was that there had been a wound of exit there,
a tracheotomy and a suturing done.
Mr. PURDY. Do you recall how that information was conveyed to Dr. Humes?
Dr. EBERSOLE. I don't. I don't recall.
There are two key points here. One is that Humes learned of tracheostomy
over the bullet hole at sometime during the evening.

Between believing Ebersole about what Humes knew, or believing Humes,
I'll believe Humes.

Especially when tons of other evidence points to the pathologists
being utterly clueless about the throat wound that evening.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Steve M. Galbraith

2018-07-31 01:32:41 UTC

On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot

WRONG as usual! Your lack of knowledge about this case leads you
into trouble often. Here are 3 witnesses proving that Humes knew the day
of the murder that a tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound in the
throat.
1. Dr. Livingston - http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
2. Dr. Ebersole
"After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole,
MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, “Ebersole had told me
during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound
from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he
had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy
– that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that
intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound –
corresponding to the back entrance wound – was
solved.”[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two
hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm
3. Nurse Audrey Bell -
"Given permission, she continues, “Saturday morning when I got
over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of
course he had been primary until Dr. Clark came … He sat down in a
chair. I said, ‘You look awful. Did you get any sleep last
night?’ And he said, ‘Well, not too much between the calls
from Bethesda that came in during the night.’ I said,
‘What about?’ He said, ‘Oh. Whether that was an
entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat.’ He said,
‘They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance
wound.’” [31] Nurse Bell clarifies that her exchange with
Dr. Perry occurred in the morning, before he decamped just after the
Saturday press conference, during which he was silent after telling Dr.
Kemp Clark what Humes had told him, and asking Clark to take over for him
to avoid having to lie at the Saturday afternoon press conference. Chalk
up another perjury for Humes, who testified that he did not discuss the
results of the autopsy with Dr. Perry. [32] The frosting on the cover-up
cake may now be tasted. Perry talked to Humes on Friday and told him that
the throat wound was an entrance wound, as did Dr. Livingston, and almost
certainly others."
From: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html
Humes knew about the tracheostomy during the autopsy. Try and get it
right next time.

You are quoting Ebersole here. You quoted Mantik in your previous post,
not Ebersole. In neither version does Ebersole say Humes spoke to Perry on
Friday night. Nobody has said that.

Post by mainframetech
Now Livingston had a way of knowing things, called a telephone,

Post by mainframetech
The third person was Nurse Audrey Bell, who heard the complaints of
DR. Perry, who aid he was getting calls from Humes at night. So that fits
with Perry's first impression.

That part is true. It is also true that they began communications with
Parkland during the autopsy.

Thanks. Yes, Ebersole's description supports your view that Humes and
Boswell suspected the neck wound was an exit wound. But why not dissect
it?

I would consider Humes a better source on what he thought and did at the
autopsy than the radiologist. As he himself said: "The tracheostomy was a
gaping wound, about 3 to 4 centimeters around, and we didn't think of it
as an exit wound..."

Again: "Didn't think of it as an exit wound." Nothing about suspecting it
or theorizing, et cetera. It's a pretty straight forward admission.

In his HSCA testimony he relates it this way: "I had to take one of my
children to a religious function that morning [i.e., Saturday], but then I
returned and made some phone calls and got hold of the people in Dallas,
which was unavailable to us during the course of the examination, as you
heard from Dr. Baden, and I couldn't agree more with the apparent findings
of his panel as to problems that we had had and hoped they would never be
repeated, and spoke with Dr. Perry and learned of the wound in the front
of the neck and things became a lot more obvious to us as to what had
occurred."

Frankly, I don't think they put the two - the back and neck wounds -
together until AFTER the autopsy.

mainframetech

2018-07-31 01:20:08 UTC

On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot

WRONG as usual! Your lack of knowledge about this case leads you
into trouble often. Here are 3 witnesses proving that Humes knew the day
of the murder that a tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound in the
throat.
1. Dr. Livingston - http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
2. Dr. Ebersole
"After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole,
MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, “Ebersole had told me
during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound
from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he
had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy
– that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that
intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound –
corresponding to the back entrance wound – was
solved.”[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two
hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm
3. Nurse Audrey Bell -
"Given permission, she continues, “Saturday morning when I got
over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of
course he had been primary until Dr. Clark came … He sat down in a
chair. I said, ‘You look awful. Did you get any sleep last
night?’ And he said, ‘Well, not too much between the calls
from Bethesda that came in during the night.’ I said,
‘What about?’ He said, ‘Oh. Whether that was an
entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat.’ He said,
‘They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance
wound.’” [31] Nurse Bell clarifies that her exchange with
Dr. Perry occurred in the morning, before he decamped just after the
Saturday press conference, during which he was silent after telling Dr.
Kemp Clark what Humes had told him, and asking Clark to take over for him
to avoid having to lie at the Saturday afternoon press conference. Chalk
up another perjury for Humes, who testified that he did not discuss the
results of the autopsy with Dr. Perry. [32] The frosting on the cover-up
cake may now be tasted. Perry talked to Humes on Friday and told him that
the throat wound was an entrance wound, as did Dr. Livingston, and almost
certainly others."
From: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html
Humes knew about the tracheostomy during the autopsy. Try and get it
right next time.

You are quoting Ebersole here. You quoted Mantik in your previous post,
not Ebersole. In neither version does Ebersole say Humes spoke to Perry on
Friday night. Nobody has said that.

Post by mainframetech
Now Livingston had a way of knowing things, called a telephone,

Post by mainframetech
The third person was Nurse Audrey Bell, who heard the complaints of
DR. Perry, who aid he was getting calls from Humes at night. So that fits
with Perry's first impression.

BD this statement is simply not, in my opinion, supported by the evidence.
You wrote: '[T]hat would have been to confirm what the autopsy team
already suspected when the traced the track of the tissue damage from the
back wound to the trachea..."
Where is the evidence they "suspected" this? The evidence for me indicates
they - Humes et al. - gave up trying to figure out where the bullet went.
From Humes and Boswell's JAMA interview: "The second bullet was more of a
puzzle. 'If we made a mistake,' Humes says, 'it was in NOT calling Dallas
before we started the autopsy. Our information from Parkland Hospital in
Dallas before we started the autopsy was zero.'
Humes again: "The tracheostomy was a gaping wound, about 3 to 4 centimere
around, and we didn't think of it as an exit wound... We also noted
damages to the neck muscles, trachea, and pleura, but there was no bullet.
It was bothering me very greatly, like nothing you can imagine, that we
could find neither the second bullet nor its track. 'J' and I both knew
that bullets can do funny things in the body and we thought it might have
deflected down to the extremities."
Key statement by Humes: "By midnight, we decided it was time to quit
speculating about the second bullet, and I am very comfortable with this
decision....By midnight our task was done - it was perfectly obvious what
had killed the man. The second bullet was important, but not of overriding
importance. WE KNEW THAT WE WOULD FIND THE EXPLANATION SOONER OR LATER."
It's clear from Humes' own words that they didn't know - or even suspect -
that the tracheostomy covered a bullet wound.
Full JAMA piece is here: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md22/html/Image00.htm

So you effectively ignored the 3 witnesses to Humes knowing DURING the
autopsy that the tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound. Just to make
it all come out nicely. However, it never occurred to you that
tracheostomies are usually neat little thin slices to admit a tube or
straw or similar to allow air to pass the trachea. It is a neat, thin
little slice. Yet the GASH in the neck was a big messy wound! Why was
this so? Well, I believe the orders were to remove bullets from the body
and since the throat wound was an entrance wound, there was probably a
bullet back in that wound and they had to make the mess trying to find it
and remove it.

The problem is in assuming that Humes was on the level at all times.
The evidence says he was under orders from the time the body arrived at
the morgue at 6:35pm.

Chris

Anthony Marsh

2018-07-31 20:17:02 UTC

On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrot

WRONG as usual! Your lack of knowledge about this case leads you
into trouble often. Here are 3 witnesses proving that Humes knew the day
of the murder that a tracheostomy was done over a bullet wound in the
throat.
1. Dr. Livingston - http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
2. Dr. Ebersole
"After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole,
MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, ???Ebersole had told me
during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound
from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he
had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy
??? that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that
intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound ???
corresponding to the back entrance wound ??? was
solved.???[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two
hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm
3. Nurse Audrey Bell -
"Given permission, she continues, ???Saturday morning when I got
over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of
course he had been primary until Dr. Clark came ??? He sat down in a
chair. I said, ???You look awful. Did you get any sleep last
night???? And he said, ???Well, not too much between the calls
from Bethesda that came in during the night.??? I said,
???What about???? He said, ???Oh. Whether that was an
entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat.??? He said,
???They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance
wound.?????? [31] Nurse Bell clarifies that her exchange with
Dr. Perry occurred in the morning, before he decamped just after the
Saturday press conference, during which he was silent after telling Dr.
Kemp Clark what Humes had told him, and asking Clark to take over for him
to avoid having to lie at the Saturday afternoon press conference. Chalk
up another perjury for Humes, who testified that he did not discuss the
results of the autopsy with Dr. Perry. [32] The frosting on the cover-up
cake may now be tasted. Perry talked to Humes on Friday and told him that
the throat wound was an entrance wound, as did Dr. Livingston, and almost
certainly others."
From: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html
Humes knew about the tracheostomy during the autopsy. Try and get it
right next time.

You are quoting Ebersole here. You quoted Mantik in your previous post,
not Ebersole. In neither version does Ebersole say Humes spoke to Perry on
Friday night. Nobody has said that.

Post by mainframetech
Now Livingston had a way of knowing things, called a telephone,

Post by mainframetech
The third person was Nurse Audrey Bell, who heard the complaints of
DR. Perry, who aid he was getting calls from Humes at night. So that fits
with Perry's first impression.

BD this statement is simply not, in my opinion, supported by the evidence.
You wrote: '[T]hat would have been to confirm what the autopsy team
already suspected when the traced the track of the tissue damage from the
back wound to the trachea..."
Where is the evidence they "suspected" this? The evidence for me indicates
they - Humes et al. - gave up trying to figure out where the bullet went.
From Humes and Boswell's JAMA interview: "The second bullet was more of a
puzzle. 'If we made a mistake,' Humes says, 'it was in NOT calling Dallas
before we started the autopsy. Our information from Parkland Hospital in
Dallas before we started the autopsy was zero.'
Humes again: "The tracheostomy was a gaping wound, about 3 to 4 centimere
around, and we didn't think of it as an exit wound... We also noted
damages to the neck muscles, trachea, and pleura, but there was no bullet.
It was bothering me very greatly, like nothing you can imagine, that we
could find neither the second bullet nor its track. 'J' and I both knew
that bullets can do funny things in the body and we thought it might have
deflected down to the extremities."
Key statement by Humes: "By midnight, we decided it was time to quit
speculating about the second bullet, and I am very comfortable with this
decision....By midnight our task was done - it was perfectly obvious what
had killed the man. The second bullet was important, but not of overriding
importance. WE KNEW THAT WE WOULD FIND THE EXPLANATION SOONER OR LATER."

Glose enough for government work.
It's not as if they had a crime to solved and needed evidence.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
It's clear from Humes' own words that they didn't know - or even suspect -
that the tracheostomy covered a bullet wound.
Full JAMA piece is here: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md22/html/Image00.htm

Anthony Marsh

2018-07-25 01:27:36 UTC

Post by mainframetech
Humes lied when he said that he learned about the tracheostomy on
Saturday morning. He needed an excuse for why he had burned his notes,
which was not supposed to be done. The notes were to be saved in all
cases. Here's the proof that Humes knew DURING the autopsy or before,
http://youtu.be/ma8aqkr-0Tg
As well, Dr. Ebersole (radiologist) spoke about knowing DURING the

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Livingston.txt

Post by mainframetech
2. Dr. Ebersole
"After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole,
MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, “Ebersole had told me
during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound
from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he
had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy
– that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that
intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound –
corresponding to the back entrance wound – was
solved.”[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two
hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm
3. Nurse Audrey Bell -
"Given permission, she continues, “Saturday morning when I got
over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of
course he had been primary until Dr. Clark came … He sat down in a
chair. I said, ‘You look awful. Did you get any sleep last
night?’ And he said, ‘Well, not too much between the calls
from Bethesda that came in during the night.’ I said,
‘What about?’ He said, ‘Oh. Whether that was an
entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat.’ He said,
‘They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance
wound.’” [31] Nurse Bell clarifies that her exchange with
Dr. Perry occurred in the morning, before he decamped just after the
Saturday press conference, during which he was silent after telling Dr.
Kemp Clark what Humes had told him, and asking Clark to take over for him
to avoid having to lie at the Saturday afternoon press conference. Chalk
up another perjury for Humes, who testified that he did not discuss the
results of the autopsy with Dr. Perry. [32] The frosting on the cover-up
cake may now be tasted. Perry talked to Humes on Friday and told him that
the throat wound was an entrance wound, as did Dr. Livingston, and almost
certainly others."
From: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html
Humes knew about the tracheostomy during the autopsy. Try and get it
right next time.

If he did, why didn't he just reach the inevitable conclusion: a shot
from behind had exited the throat?

There's something naughty about just jumping to conclusions without
proving them with facts.

Remember, Humes knew there was an entrance wound in the back (it had
an abrasion collar), and he knew there was no bullet in the body.
So knowing that the tracheotomy covered a throat wound would have
simply allowed him to reach the same conclusion earlier.

Duh! are you sure Humes was QUALIFIED to reach that conclusion?
Ice Bullet? Really, dude? Would YOU have said that?
Would anyone here say that?
Bueller?

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

mainframetech

2018-07-25 01:41:31 UTC

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Livingston.txt

If he did, why didn't he just reach the inevitable conclusion: a shot
from behind had exited the throat?
Remember, Humes knew there was an entrance wound in the back (it had
an abrasion collar), and he knew there was no bullet in the body.
So knowing that the tracheotomy covered a throat wound would have
simply allowed him to reach the same conclusion earlier.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

The story including the extra text about the 'neighboring wound' might
just as easily have prompted Humes to think of the tracheotomy going over
the bullet wound, but I produced 3 witnesses, of which Livingston was only
one. Dr. Ebersole was witness to the phone call to Perry at Parkland, and
it actually stopped him from, doing certain things that he was about to
do. As well, Nurse Audrey Bell heard it from Dr. Perry himself that he
had been up all night answering Humes from Bethesda who was trying to get
him to change his conclusion to an exit instead of an entrance in the
throat.

The evidence says it was an entrance in the throat, and seeing inside
the body with the organs removed told onlookers that the back wound bullet
did NOT traverse the body and come out the throat. Even the Autopsy
Report (AR) stated that the "pleura was intact". The bullet could NOT go
through without tearing or puncturing tissue. The bullet also did NOT 'go
around' the pleura. Bullets go through things, they don't take a curve
and go around them. The bullet did NOT come out the throat wound, and the
SBT is dead. As one of the autopsy team members said, it was a 'short
shot', where something defective in the bullet or the weapon caused the
bullet to strike with much less than normal impact and not penetrate but
an inch or so into JFK's back.

Chris

bigdog

2018-07-26 01:48:34 UTC

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Livingston.txt

Ebersole never said Humes talked to Perry on Friday night. You are making
that up.

Post by mainframetech
As well, Nurse Audrey Bell heard it from Dr. Perry himself that he
had been up all night answering Humes from Bethesda who was trying to get
him to change his conclusion to an exit instead of an entrance in the
throat.

You are making more stuff up. Bell did not say that Perry told her he
spoke to Humes. He said he was talking to people at Bethesda. Why do you
continually twist the facts when you have been corrected on this point
numerous times?

Post by mainframetech
The evidence says it was an entrance in the throat,

No such evidence exists.

Post by mainframetech
and seeing inside
the body with the organs removed told onlookers that the back wound bullet
did NOT traverse the body and come out the throat.

So no you turn to the techies to determine what the autopsy showed. How
silly.

Post by mainframetech
Even the Autopsy
Report (AR) stated that the "pleura was intact". The bullet could NOT go
through without tearing or puncturing tissue.

That's right. It went above the pleura which is why the pleura was
contused and not perforated.

Post by mainframetech
The bullet also did NOT 'go around' the pleura.

That's true. It passed just above it.

Post by mainframetech
Bullets go through things, they don't take a curve
and go around them.

Actually bullets do curve when passing through tissue but that's not why
the bullet did strike the pleura. It passed above it but close enough to
cause the bruise.

Post by mainframetech
The bullet did NOT come out the throat wound, and the
SBT is dead.

Here is where you insert your opinion in place of all the knowledgeable
people who have said otherwise.

Post by mainframetech
As one of the autopsy team members said, it was a 'short
shot', where something defective in the bullet or the weapon caused the
bullet to strike with much less than normal impact and not penetrate but
an inch or so into JFK's back.

A techie said that and techies are not qualified to make judgements about
the medical evidence. Their job is to perform specific tasks to help the
people who are knowledgeable. The knowledgeable people concluded otherwise
but of course you opt for the unqualified opinion. It has been explained
to you that a short shot would not have had the velocity to reach the
target. That's why it's called a short shot. It falls short of the target.
You've never been able to explain your way around that inconvenient fact
so you just ignore it.

mainframetech

2018-07-27 01:02:56 UTC

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Livingston.txt

Ebersole never said Humes talked to Perry on Friday night. You are making
that up.

WRONG sucker! In a previous post I gave you the words form Ebersole's
testimony. You'll never learn.

Who do you think Perry would talk to doing an autopsy on JFK? Don't
give me your dismissive crap.

Post by mainframetech
The evidence says it was an entrance in the throat,

No such evidence exists.

Well now, of course it does! Where do you get these weird ideas? The
wound was described as stellate and punctate, both suggesting an entrance
hole that had been 'punched inward'. Why do you suppose Perry and others
originally thought the wound was an entrance?

Post by mainframetech
and seeing inside
the body with the organs removed told onlookers that the back wound bullet
did NOT traverse the body and come out the throat.

So no you turn to the techies to determine what the autopsy showed. How
silly.

WRONG again! They didn't determine anything. They simply told me
what they saw.

Post by mainframetech
Even the Autopsy
Report (AR) stated that the "pleura was intact". The bullet could NOT go
through without tearing or puncturing tissue.

That's right. It went above the pleura which is why the pleura was
contused and not perforated.

FALSE! More disinformation! The bullet struck an inch into the pleura
and lung, and there was no way a bullet was going to then 'go around' any
organs. Bullets plow through organs, and make tears and punctures, they
don't stand up and hop around obstacles.

Post by mainframetech
The bullet also did NOT 'go around' the pleura.

That's true. It passed just above it.

FALSE! The bullet struck an inch into the pleura and lung at the
least, and Jenkins saw that it struck the middle lobe and not the top
lobe.

Post by mainframetech
Bullets go through things, they don't take a curve
and go around them.

Actually bullets do curve when passing through tissue but that's not why
the bullet did strike the pleura. It passed above it but close enough to
cause the bruise.

FALSE! You won't get away with that false information. See above.

Post by mainframetech
The bullet did NOT come out the throat wound, and the
SBT is dead.

Here is where you insert your opinion in place of all the knowledgeable
people who have said otherwise.

Not one of your knowledgeable people saw anything in the body except
the autopsy team. And some of them were under orders to fake the Autopsy
Report (AR). Every one of the medical panels saw nothing in the body
where the proof was, and it now is looking like they were fed bad info.

A techie said that and techies are not qualified to make judgements about
the medical evidence.

Stop the bullshit! No Technologist made any determination or
judgment, they merely described what they saw. Which told us everything.
A short shot is a known factor seen now and then. It's like shoe, when
you see one, you may look, a shoe. It's a known factor.

Post by bigdog
Their job is to perform specific tasks to help the
people who are knowledgeable. The knowledgeable people concluded otherwise
but of course you opt for the unqualified opinion. It has been explained
to you that a short shot would not have had the velocity to reach the
target. That's why it's called a short shot. It falls short of the target.
You've never been able to explain your way around that inconvenient fact
so you just ignore it.

KNOCK OFF THE CRAP! No one used the opinions of technologists, only
what they saw, which was enough. You keep trying to say that, probably
because your story is so weak other wise.

Chris

bigdog

2018-07-28 03:52:40 UTC

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Livingston.txt

Ebersole never said Humes talked to Perry on Friday night. You are making
that up.

WRONG sucker! In a previous post I gave you the words form Ebersole's
testimony. You'll never learn.

Yes you did and in those words, you will never find Ebersole saying Humes
spoke to Perry on Friday night. That was your addition to Ebersole's
statement. If I am wrong, you could easily prove me wrong by simply
quoting the line in which Ebersole said Humes spoke directly to Perry but
we both know you won't do that because you can't. Anyone reading this
thread knows that too.

Who do you think Perry would talk to doing an autopsy on JFK? Don't
give me your dismissive crap.

So you admit you are just assuming Perry talked to Humes. There were two
other pathologists on the team whom he could have spoken to as well as
Ebersole. Since you think so highly of your two techies, maybe he spoke to
one of them but I seriously doubt that.

Post by mainframetech
The evidence says it was an entrance in the throat,

No such evidence exists.

Whether a bullet is entering or exiting, if it has not deformed it will
make a neat little hole. Exit wounds are typically larger and more ragged
because lead is a soft metal that deforms easily even when striking soft
tissue. Copper FMJ bullets are specifically designed not to deform when
striking soft tissue so if they pass through a body without hitting bone,
they will make a neat little exit wound. Experienced forensic pathologists
know an entry wound has an abrasion collar but an ER doctor might not be
aware of that. That's not his job.

Post by mainframetech
and seeing inside
the body with the organs removed told onlookers that the back wound bullet
did NOT traverse the body and come out the throat.

So no you turn to the techies to determine what the autopsy showed. How
silly.

WRONG again! They didn't determine anything. They simply told me
what they saw.

What they saw didn't indicate a non-transiting bullet. That was just their
interpretation based on their lack of training in forensic medicine.

Post by mainframetech
Even the Autopsy
Report (AR) stated that the "pleura was intact". The bullet could NOT go
through without tearing or puncturing tissue.

That's right. It went above the pleura which is why the pleura was
contused and not perforated.

So now you are pretending to know better than the pathologists who
performed the autopsy and the review panels who saw so much more evidence
than you have. None of the leaked photos show the bruised pleura so you
can't have seen that tissue damage yet you presume to know things you
couldn't possibly know. Pay attention this time and write this down so you
don't forget it. The bullet did not go around the pleura. It passed just
above but close enough that the pressure cavity caused bruising of the
surrounding tissue. I've cited an article by someone knowledgeable in
forensic medicine that explains that very simple concept. It's amazing you
have so much trouble comprehending it.

Post by mainframetech
The bullet also did NOT 'go around' the pleura.

That's true. It passed just above it.

FALSE! The bullet struck an inch into the pleura and lung at the
least, and Jenkins saw that it struck the middle lobe and not the top
lobe.

So you take Jenkins word rather than the more knowledgeable pathologists.
Typical.

Post by mainframetech
Bullets go through things, they don't take a curve
and go around them.

Actually bullets do curve when passing through tissue but that's not why
the bullet did strike the pleura. It passed above it but close enough to
cause the bruise.

FALSE! You won't get away with that false information. See above.

The false information is all coming from you.

Post by mainframetech
The bullet did NOT come out the throat wound, and the
SBT is dead.

Here is where you insert your opinion in place of all the knowledgeable
people who have said otherwise.

Because the most knowledgeable people on team reached findings that
conflict with what you would rather believe, you make the ridiculous
assumption that they were ordered to lie about their findings rather than
modifying your beliefs to fit the evidence they provided. Also typical.

A techie said that and techies are not qualified to make judgements about
the medical evidence.

Why do you think it's called a short shot? It's a simple concept. It is
called a short shot because it lacks the velocity to hold its trajectory
before gravity has caused it to fall well short of the target. Short shots
do not hit the intended target because they can't. Simple physics here.
Why do you have such a hard time understanding that?

KNOCK OFF THE CRAP! No one used the opinions of technologists, only
what they saw, which was enough. You keep trying to say that, probably
because your story is so weak other wise.

So the pathologists said A and the techies said B and you like B better so
you choose to believe the techies. The pathologists told us what they saw
too but you don't like what they said they saw so instead you invent a
baseless story that they were ordered to lie.

Anthony Marsh

2018-07-29 18:20:32 UTC

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Livingston.txt

Post by mainframetech
2. Dr. Ebersole
"After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole,
MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, ???Ebersole had told me
during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound
from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he
had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy
??? that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that
intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound ???
corresponding to the back entrance wound ??? was
solved.???[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two
hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy."
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm
3. Nurse Audrey Bell -
"Given permission, she continues, ???Saturday morning when I got
over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of
course he had been primary until Dr. Clark came ??? He sat down in a
chair. I said, ???You look awful. Did you get any sleep last
night???? And he said, ???Well, not too much between the calls
from Bethesda that came in during the night.??? I said,
???What about???? He said, ???Oh. Whether that was an
entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat.??? He said,
???They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance
wound.?????? [31] Nurse Bell clarifies that her exchange with
Dr. Perry occurred in the morning, before he decamped just after the
Saturday press conference, during which he was silent after telling Dr.
Kemp Clark what Humes had told him, and asking Clark to take over for him
to avoid having to lie at the Saturday afternoon press conference. Chalk
up another perjury for Humes, who testified that he did not discuss the
results of the autopsy with Dr. Perry. [32] The frosting on the cover-up
cake may now be tasted. Perry talked to Humes on Friday and told him that
the throat wound was an entrance wound, as did Dr. Livingston, and almost
certainly others."
From: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html
Humes knew about the tracheostomy during the autopsy. Try and get it
right next time.

Ebersole never said Humes talked to Perry on Friday night. You are making
that up.

WRONG sucker! In a previous post I gave you the words form Ebersole's
testimony. You'll never learn.

Who do you think Perry would talk to doing an autopsy on JFK? Don't
give me your dismissive crap.

Post by mainframetech
The evidence says it was an entrance in the throat,

No such evidence exists.

Post by mainframetech
and seeing inside
the body with the organs removed told onlookers that the back wound bullet
did NOT traverse the body and come out the throat.

So no you turn to the techies to determine what the autopsy showed. How
silly.

WRONG again! They didn't determine anything. They simply told me
what they saw.

What they saw didn't indicate a non-transiting bullet. That was just their
interpretation based on their lack of training in forensic medicine.

Post by mainframetech
Even the Autopsy
Report (AR) stated that the "pleura was intact". The bullet could NOT go
through without tearing or puncturing tissue.

That's right. It went above the pleura which is why the pleura was
contused and not perforated.

Post by mainframetech
The bullet also did NOT 'go around' the pleura.

That's true. It passed just above it.

FALSE! The bullet struck an inch into the pleura and lung at the
least, and Jenkins saw that it struck the middle lobe and not the top
lobe.

So you take Jenkins word rather than the more knowledgeable pathologists.
Typical.

Post by mainframetech
Bullets go through things, they don't take a curve
and go around them.

Actually bullets do curve when passing through tissue but that's not why
the bullet did strike the pleura. It passed above it but close enough to
cause the bruise.

FALSE! You won't get away with that false information. See above.

The false information is all coming from you.

Post by mainframetech
The bullet did NOT come out the throat wound, and the
SBT is dead.

Here is where you insert your opinion in place of all the knowledgeable
people who have said otherwise.

A techie said that and techies are not qualified to make judgements about
the medical evidence.

Then you are talking about a different gun. Oswald's rifle never fired
short shots. The only lower velocity than normal was a foulding shot, and
that only got down to 1861 fps, too fast to just stop in the body.

Loading Image...

KNOCK OFF THE CRAP! No one used the opinions of technologists, only
what they saw, which was enough. You keep trying to say that, probably
because your story is so weak other wise.

So you believe Humes when he said it was an ICE BULLET? Can you sell me
one or are they only on E-bay?

If you keep using Argument by Authority, you are stuck with the stupidity
of YOUR expert.

Anthony Marsh

2018-07-28 12:26:53 UTC

The autopsy team suspected by the time the autopsy was completed that a
tracheostomy had been performed over the exit wound which is why they

They weren't sure it was an exit wound.

Post by bigdog
originally didn't think there had been one. Humes wanted to verify that
with Dr. Perry directly and that conversation took place the following
morning. There had been conversations between Parkland and Bethesda during
the autopsy but Saturday morning is when Humes spoke directly to Perry.
You can't cite a single witness who said Humes spoke directly to Perry the
previous night.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Livingston.txt

Ebersole never said Humes talked to Perry on Friday night. You are making
that up.

WRONG sucker! In a previous post I gave you the words form Ebersole's
testimony. You'll never learn.

Who do you think Perry would talk to doing an autopsy on JFK? Don't
give me your dismissive crap.

Post by mainframetech
The evidence says it was an entrance in the throat,

No such evidence exists.

Post by mainframetech
and seeing inside
the body with the organs removed told onlookers that the back wound bullet
did NOT traverse the body and come out the throat.

So no you turn to the techies to determine what the autopsy showed. How
silly.

WRONG again! They didn't determine anything. They simply told me
what they saw.

Post by mainframetech
Even the Autopsy
Report (AR) stated that the "pleura was intact". The bullet could NOT go
through without tearing or puncturing tissue.

That's right. It went above the pleura which is why the pleura was
contused and not perforated.

Post by mainframetech
The bullet also did NOT 'go around' the pleura.

That's true. It passed just above it.

FALSE! The bullet struck an inch into the pleura and lung at the
least, and Jenkins saw that it struck the middle lobe and not the top
lobe.

Post by mainframetech
Bullets go through things, they don't take a curve
and go around them.

Actually bullets do curve when passing through tissue but that's not why
the bullet did strike the pleura. It passed above it but close enough to
cause the bruise.

FALSE! You won't get away with that false information. See above.

Post by mainframetech
The bullet did NOT come out the throat wound, and the
SBT is dead.

Here is where you insert your opinion in place of all the knowledgeable
people who have said otherwise.

A techie said that and techies are not qualified to make judgements about
the medical evidence.

KNOCK OFF THE CRAP! No one used the opinions of technologists, only
what they saw, which was enough. You keep trying to say that, probably
because your story is so weak other wise.
Chris

Anthony Marsh

2018-07-26 13:22:27 UTC

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Livingston.txt

Who? Who told? Did you leave out the name intentionally to mislead
everyone. Who? Do you mean the janitor? You think the janitor is more
qualified than the autopsy doctors?

Post by mainframetech
did NOT traverse the body and come out the throat. Even the Autopsy
Report (AR) stated that the "pleura was intact". The bullet could NOT go

So what? Irrelevant. The bullet went OVER the pleura. It did not go
through the lung. It went close enough to the lung to bruise it.
If you have a bruise on your arm does that prove that a bullet went
THROUGH it? Only a bruise. No hole.

Post by mainframetech
through without tearing or puncturing tissue. The bullet also did NOT 'go
around' the pleura. Bullets go through things, they don't take a curve

No one said AROUND, Mr. Straw Man. OVER. Learn English.

Post by mainframetech
and go around them. The bullet did NOT come out the throat wound, and the
SBT is dead. As one of the autopsy team members said, it was a 'short

FYI, a SBT does not require that the bullet comes out the throat wound,
but it did.

Post by mainframetech
shot', where something defective in the bullet or the weapon caused the
bullet to strike with much less than normal impact and not penetrate but
an inch or so into JFK's back.

Sure, such as? How about defective powder or defective primer? Thousands
of rounds have been fired without any such problem. One guy tried to
duplicate your short shot and underloaded the powder so much that the
bullet couldn't even get out of the barrel and the action exploded in his
hands.

So much for YOUR pet theory. Tested and debunked. If you don't believe
Chapman, why don't you get out your 91/38 and test it for yourself.

Post by mainframetech
Chris

Anthony Marsh

2018-07-22 01:41:17 UTC

Post by John McAdams
On 19 Jul 2018 17:35:55 -0400, Anthony Marsh

Post by Anthony Marsh
But Finck was ordered NOT to examine the wound.

Interesting that buffs obsess on the New Orleans trial testimony, when
there is copious evidence from both Manchester and the HSCA
interviews.
It was Adm. George Burkley who was (correctly) assumed to represent
"the family" and who was hurrying things up.

Irrelevant. This was about a GENERAL, not an ADMIRAL.

Was Burkely in the autopsy room all the time telling them not to examine
wounds?

Got any testimony to that effect?

Try to stay on topic.

Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

mainframetech

2018-07-15 23:46:46 UTC

Post by d***@gmail.com
I've often thought that Humes may have written the 1st draft BEFORE having
the telephone conversation with Dr. Perry (Parkland) and discovered (for

Well, he said he did. Don't you beliieve him?
Maybe the FBI told him that there is no such thing as an Ice Bullet.

Post by d***@gmail.com
the first time) that there was a bullet wound in the throat. The

Thanks for the 11/23/63 Boston Globe article, Tony.
It's interesting, indeed, to see that despite Dr. Perry's initial
guesswork about the throat wound being one of ENTRY, the media was (on
Sat., Nov. 23!) also theorizing about the throat wound being an EXIT wound
as well....
"The rather meager medical details attributed to Dr. Malcolm Perry, the
attending surgeon, described the bullet as entering just below the Adam's
Apple and leaving by the back of the head. Since that statement Friday
afternoon, it is believed from determining the site of the firing that the
bullet entered the back of the head first and came out just under the
Adam's Apple." -- Boston Globe; 11/23/63
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-h5LGtiXhTGA/W0Uk7VDW26I/AAAAAAABPQ4/_eyn0AQOhAQLte-lmerJMZUfpCVyIPMPQCLcBGAs/s1600/The-Boston-Globe-11-23-63.jpg

WRONG again! You'll never learn! I'm not playing medical examiner
by copying out O'Connor's statement. He was there and he saw certain
things, that he said were also seen by the pathologists too. And what he
saw was clearly a different thing than what was reported in the phony AR.
Normally, his comments would probably never have been seen, what with the
order of silence placed on the whole autopsy. But because the public was
unhappy with the phony stories coming out of the government, there had to
be investigations, which freed the men to speak finally.

Connors account of what the autopsy show is in direct conflict with the
findings by three far more qualified pathologists. So why would you give
more credibility to him than you do to them?

You have got to be kidding! O'Connors did not make a pathologists
"finding", he described something he saw, and he said who also saw it with
him at the same time. He didn't make "findings", he told what he saw.
Anyone with normal abilities could understand him.

In the overview, which you seem not to care for, it shows conspiracy,
and knowing that, changes the way everything has to be looked at. That
includes the autopsy and the ridiculous AR which leaves out critical
information so as to fool the medical examiners.

Post by mainframetech
So the proof was in the body, which showed that no bullet left the body
of JFK through the throat wound, therefore the SBT is dead, and there was
a conspiracy.

Poor information leads to poor conclusions.

Poor opinions vs. good reporting.

Post by d***@gmail.com
conclusion that he reached during the autopsy was that the bullet didn't
transit and must have fallen out. It didn't seem to make a lot of sense

Someone told them it probably came out during heart massage.

Post by d***@gmail.com
but there was really no choice based on 1) there was no exit wound and 2)
x-rays indicated there was no embedded bullet.

With that type of ammo there will almost NEVER be en embedded bullet
except for at the end of 44 inches of Pondersosa Pine.

The LNs can sure go to extremes to avoid the simple facts. Consider
that the pathologists at Bethesda had orders to make it look like the
cause of death as from a bullet from above and behind.

WRONG as usual! Since the real results seen in the body by the autopsy
team members were avoided and a phony AR was created instead, it is
OBVIOUS that orders had to come down to Humes as to what he had to do.
He was not the type to take initiative himself for such a move.

Post by mainframetech
As well they would
be ordered to remove ALL bullets from the body, so that no other weapon
than the MC rifle would be proven to have also helped in the killing.

Another fabrication.

Post by mainframetech
Tracheotomies are usually small, neat slits enough to get a tube into to
allow breathing. Yet the autopsy photos show a large messy gash at the
throat of JFK.

I suppose you think a wound would remain a narrow slit despite lots of
fluids draining from the body in the hours from when the incision was made
until the photo was taken.

So you believe that fluids draining will make a little slit become a
big messy gash? Hmm.

Post by bigdog
It is preposterous to think they would try to
dig out a bullet that entered the throat from the front since it would
penetrate so deeply. In fact even a medium powered bullet would have
exited the back of the neck.

So you feel that the spine isn't strong enough to stop a bullet when
hit by one. I see.

Post by bigdog
From your proposed location on the SoGK and
the 15 degree angle of attack, it would exit from the back right of the
neck if JFK were facing straight ahead. In the last view we had of him
before the bullet struck he was turned slightly to his right which would
make for an even sharper angle of entry and an exit out the right side of
his neck. Really basic geometry.

Basic yes. Fitting the situation, not for sure.

Post by mainframetech
I suggest to you that came from Humes and Boswell probing
around in the neck to find the bullet which probably hit the spine and
stopped there, so they could remove it.

Had that happened, JFK would have been paralyzed and unable to lift his
arms. This is what happened to MLK and that bullet went through his
jawbone, not the soft tissue of his throat.

Don't be ridiculous! There is no similarity with the 2 cases. and a
throat is soft tissue except where the spine is.

Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that conclusion was reflected in his first draft and then,
after the Perry conversation, it all became much clearer and made a lot

Yes, I seriously doubt and no one has been able to ptove that it was the
2 FBI agents who INVENTED the Ice Bullet Theory (IBT).

Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that Humes may have been somewhat embarrassed about his 1st
conclusion. That may explain why he did elaborate as to what those

Ya think?
He was embarrassed by his incompetence.

Post by d***@gmail.com
clothing of a shooting victim is often relevant. Humes never examined
Kennedy's shirt/tie. I'm not sure whether he even had access to them so it

So what? Leave that to the FBI.

Post by d***@gmail.com
may not have been his fault. But he could have, at least, inquired about
it. 3) He didn't track the wound. That seemed to be more in the interest

Common sense? Are you nuts?

First, you seem to have forgotten that the body was being worked on
BEFORE the family and the FBI agents had arrived. There were only Humes
and Boswell, the 2 X-ray Technicians, and a couple from Gawler's.
Second, "clanks" to advise that a bullet needed to be grabbed before it
became evidence of another shooter would be useful. Third, the term
"sonometer" was used among medical personnel, which was one more thing you
were unaware of, as follows:

https://allnurses.com/general-nursing-discussion/-quot-centi-quot-160116.html

https://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/pronouncing-centimeter.283637/

http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/blog/radiology-grammar-police-centimeter-or-sontimeter

A French accent pronouncing 'centimeter' will make it sound like
SON-timeter, and that's how it got started.

No competent doctor just inserts his pinky.

Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN

True, but Humes was not a very experienced pathologist.

There were comments from the medical panels that looked over the work,
that Humes had made a number of mistakes.

Chris

bigdog

2018-07-16 22:39:36 UTC

Post by d***@gmail.com
I've often thought that Humes may have written the 1st draft BEFORE having
the telephone conversation with Dr. Perry (Parkland) and discovered (for

Well, he said he did. Don't you beliieve him?
Maybe the FBI told him that there is no such thing as an Ice Bullet.

Post by d***@gmail.com
the first time) that there was a bullet wound in the throat. The

Thanks for the 11/23/63 Boston Globe article, Tony.
It's interesting, indeed, to see that despite Dr. Perry's initial
guesswork about the throat wound being one of ENTRY, the media was (on
Sat., Nov. 23!) also theorizing about the throat wound being an EXIT wound
as well....
"The rather meager medical details attributed to Dr. Malcolm Perry, the
attending surgeon, described the bullet as entering just below the Adam's
Apple and leaving by the back of the head. Since that statement Friday
afternoon, it is believed from determining the site of the firing that the
bullet entered the back of the head first and came out just under the
Adam's Apple." -- Boston Globe; 11/23/63
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-h5LGtiXhTGA/W0Uk7VDW26I/AAAAAAABPQ4/_eyn0AQOhAQLte-lmerJMZUfpCVyIPMPQCLcBGAs/s1600/The-Boston-Globe-11-23-63.jpg

WRONG again! You'll never learn! I'm not playing medical examiner
by copying out O'Connor's statement. He was there and he saw certain
things, that he said were also seen by the pathologists too.

The pathologists said they saw something different than what O'Connor
described but naturally you choose to believe O'Connor and claim the
pathologists lied.

Post by mainframetech
And what he
saw was clearly a different thing than what was reported in the phony AR.

So why do you assume O'Connor is right and the AR is wrong?

Post by mainframetech
Normally, his comments would probably never have been seen, what with the
order of silence placed on the whole autopsy. But because the public was
unhappy with the phony stories coming out of the government, there had to
be investigations, which freed the men to speak finally.

When he had a chance to tell his story under oath to the HSCA interviewer,
he never mentioned any of this. It was only when he began talking to
authors and wasn't under oath that he came up with these embellishments.

Connors account of what the autopsy show is in direct conflict with the
findings by three far more qualified pathologists. So why would you give
more credibility to him than you do to them?

You have got to be kidding! O'Connors did not make a pathologists
"finding", he described something he saw,

The pathologists described what they saw. I ask you again. Why do you put
more faith in what O'Connor said he saw than what the pathologists said
they saw.

Post by mainframetech
and he said who also saw it with
him at the same time. He didn't make "findings", he told what he saw.
Anyone with normal abilities could understand him.

Anyone with normal abilities could understand what the pathologists said
they saw but for some reason that went over your head.

Post by mainframetech
In the overview, which you seem not to care for, it shows conspiracy,
and knowing that, changes the way everything has to be looked at.

It changes nothing. Silly conspiracy hobbyist figuring has been around
for over 50 years.

Post by mainframetech
That
includes the autopsy and the ridiculous AR which leaves out critical
information so as to fool the medical examiners.

Oh, so now the medical examiners were fooled. Is there no end to your
silliness?

Post by mainframetech
So the proof was in the body, which showed that no bullet left the body
of JFK through the throat wound, therefore the SBT is dead, and there was
a conspiracy.

Poor information leads to poor conclusions.

Poor opinions vs. good reporting.

Post by d***@gmail.com
conclusion that he reached during the autopsy was that the bullet didn't
transit and must have fallen out. It didn't seem to make a lot of sense

Someone told them it probably came out during heart massage.

Post by d***@gmail.com
but there was really no choice based on 1) there was no exit wound and 2)
x-rays indicated there was no embedded bullet.

With that type of ammo there will almost NEVER be en embedded bullet
except for at the end of 44 inches of Pondersosa Pine.

The LNs can sure go to extremes to avoid the simple facts. Consider
that the pathologists at Bethesda had orders to make it look like the
cause of death as from a bullet from above and behind.

WRONG as usual! Since the real results seen in the body by the autopsy
team members

You keep saying that as if all the autopsy team members said they saw what
you are claiming. In reality, it was only the two least qualified people
on the team who said they saw that. The pathologists all said they saw
something different.

Post by mainframetech
were avoided and a phony AR was created instead, it is
OBVIOUS that orders had to come down to Humes as to what he had to do.
He was not the type to take initiative himself for such a move.

So now you are psycho-analyzing Humes.

Post by mainframetech
As well they would
be ordered to remove ALL bullets from the body, so that no other weapon
than the MC rifle would be proven to have also helped in the killing.

Another fabrication.

Post by mainframetech
Tracheotomies are usually small, neat slits enough to get a tube into to
allow breathing. Yet the autopsy photos show a large messy gash at the
throat of JFK.

I suppose you think a wound would remain a narrow slit despite lots of
fluids draining from the body in the hours from when the incision was made
until the photo was taken.

So you believe that fluids draining will make a little slit become a
big messy gash? Hmm.

Of course it will. As fluids drain out, there will be contraction of
tissue. I've already told you about a simple experiment you can perform.
Cut a neat slice into the skin of an apple. Leave the apple out where it
will begin to dehydrate. You will find that the neat little slice will
begin to open up.

So you feel that the spine isn't strong enough to stop a bullet when
hit by one. I see.

JFK's spine was not hit by a bullet. If he had been it would have
paralyzed him. In addition, you have proposed a bullet entering the center
of JFK's throat at a 15 degree angle. That isn't going to hit his spine. I
know geometry isn't your strong suit but I would think even you could
figure that out.

Basic yes. Fitting the situation, not for sure.

By that you mean the geometry doesn't fit your beliefs so we must suspend
geometric analysis.

Post by mainframetech
I suggest to you that came from Humes and Boswell probing
around in the neck to find the bullet which probably hit the spine and
stopped there, so they could remove it.

Had that happened, JFK would have been paralyzed and unable to lift his
arms. This is what happened to MLK and that bullet went through his
jawbone, not the soft tissue of his throat.

Don't be ridiculous! There is no similarity with the 2 cases. and a
throat is soft tissue except where the spine is.

Yes it is and a bullet from the SoGK hitting JFK in the center of his
throat would not hit his spine. It would exit to the right of his
spine.

Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that conclusion was reflected in his first draft and then,
after the Perry conversation, it all became much clearer and made a lot

Yes, I seriously doubt and no one has been able to ptove that it was the
2 FBI agents who INVENTED the Ice Bullet Theory (IBT).

Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm thinking that Humes may have been somewhat embarrassed about his 1st
conclusion. That may explain why he did elaborate as to what those

Ya think?
He was embarrassed by his incompetence.

Post by d***@gmail.com
clothing of a shooting victim is often relevant. Humes never examined
Kennedy's shirt/tie. I'm not sure whether he even had access to them so it

So what? Leave that to the FBI.

Post by d***@gmail.com
may not have been his fault. But he could have, at least, inquired about
it. 3) He didn't track the wound. That seemed to be more in the interest

Common sense? Are you nuts?

First, you seem to have forgotten that the body was being worked on
BEFORE the family and the FBI agents had arrived.

I haven't forgotten anything. That didn't happen except in the
imaginations of silly conspiracy hobbyists.

Post by mainframetech
There were only Humes
and Boswell, the 2 X-ray Technicians, and a couple from Gawler's.
Second, "clanks" to advise that a bullet needed to be grabbed before it
became evidence of another shooter would be useful. Third, the term
"sonometer" was used among medical personnel, which was one more thing you
https://allnurses.com/general-nursing-discussion/-quot-centi-quot-160116.html
https://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/pronouncing-centimeter.283637/
http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/blog/radiology-grammar-police-centimeter-or-sontimeter
A French accent pronouncing 'centimeter' will make it sound like
SON-timeter, and that's how it got started.

Who on the autopsy team had a French accent? Can you cite a competent
medical examiner who substitutes sonometer for centimeter?