You couldn't reconcile the autopsy witnesses claim that the doctors probed the throat wound with the FBI story that they always thought the throat wound was a tracheotomy.
You couldn't reconcile the cranial opening visible on the back wound photo with Dr. Finck's testimonies that he saw an entry wound within the area of skull that was removed for said cranial opening.
You couldn't reconcile the grassy knoll earwitnesses with the HSCA earshot study which provided no evidence that the acoustics in Dealey Plaza would distort the noise of a shot enough.
I just tend to stop responding when I feel like the replies aren't sufficiently concerned with the truth.
I'm pretty disturbed by BStrong and Reheat thinking it would ever be ok to not release the name of a convict or even suspect in a high-profile crime case.
That's too bad. I've felt that way for a long time. You are not likely to persuade me otherwise with rhetoric. Here's an article from a rather liberal Web Site expressing the same opinion.
I don't care about whatever hypothetical you pull out about copycats, or how the suspect/convict feels about what they did, people should have the freedom to know.
This is gibberish. What this has to do with freedom is anyone's guess. You can immortalize impotent perverts all you want. Please leave me out of that equation. The true history of JFK's assassination is recorded just fine. I don't think it needs any more help from conspiracy theorists,
BTW, you recommended Bugliosi's Reclaiming History. Have you actually read it? How do you reconcile that with your devotion to alternative minutiae.
You couldn't reconcile the autopsy witnesses claim that the doctors probed the throat wound with the FBI story that they always thought the throat wound was a tracheotomy.
It was a tracheotomy. They just didn't know that it was done thru a wound. They found out later in phone conversations with the Parkland Dr.'s. What's the problem?
You couldn't reconcile the cranial opening visible on the back wound photo with Dr. Finck's testimonies that he saw an entry wound within the area of skull that was removed for said cranial opening.
What difference does it make regarding a would to the back of the head? It blew off about a third of his skull. Who cares exactly where the entry wound was?
You couldn't reconcile the grassy knoll earwitnesses with the HSCA earshot study which provided no evidence that the acoustics in Dealey Plaza would distort the noise of a shot enough.
In the interest of not having a particular subject last forever with infinite pointless forum comments, I will not answer responses that obviously have no interest in the truth. You can have your ideas, if they are truly your ideas.
I'm pretty disturbed by BStrong and Reheat thinking it would ever be ok to not release the name of a convict or even suspect in a high-profile crime case. I don't care about whatever hypothetical you pull out about copycats, or how the suspect/convict feels about what they did, people should have the freedom to know. I have a respect for people's freedom and the establishment of history. Lone Nutters don't respect history.
You couldn't reconcile the autopsy witnesses claim that the doctors probed the throat wound with the FBI story that they always thought the throat wound was a tracheotomy.
False. I pointed out that David Lifton covered the various transmissions of the information in his book BEST EVIDENCE. He spoke of the transmission of two different sets of conclusions - the FBI conclusions vs what he calls the Navy (Bethesda Doctors) conclusions and traced out how those conclusions were disseminated through news reports. He credited Judge Fein with coming up with the argument originally, and showed how the FBI conclusion was based on the autopsy conclusion at the end of the autopsy that night, but how the Navy conclusion was based on the revised conclusion after the Bethesda doctors learned of a throat wound that the trache was made through the next morning. I went into great detail on this, you ignored it all.
You couldn't reconcile the cranial opening visible on the back wound photo with Dr. Finck's testimonies that he saw an entry wound within the area of skull that was removed for said cranial opening.
False. You haven't shown there's any true conflict there, as you're relying on recollections from years after the fact to make an appearance of a conflict. But no one here is going to be convinced there's a problem because you found an apparent conflict between the hard evidence and someone's recollection from years later. I went into great detail on this, you ignored it all.
You couldn't reconcile the grassy knoll earwitnesses with the HSCA earshot study which provided no evidence that the acoustics in Dealey Plaza would distort the noise of a shot enough.
False. I quoted both witnesses in Dealey Plaza who spoke of the confusion of sounds because of echoes and quoted the experts in that HSCA study that stated there was no reason to believe a rifle was fired from the Knoll. I also pointed out all the hard evidence confirming the witnesses who thought shots came from the Depository, and asked you to point out the evidence confirming the shots came from the knoll. You ignored that. As you ignored my request to name the supposed knoll witnesses you allege comprise 40 to 50 percent of the witnesses. You haven't named any. I went into great detail on this, you ignored it all.
So you say. But when you've supposedly exposed your opponent's weakness, isn't that time to go for the jugular, not drop the issue entirely?
But when I see the replies aren't sufficiently concerned with the truth, I hammer my opponent harder, pointing out how they are avoiding answering tough questions, like what's YOUR hypothesis for the source of the bullet recovered in Parkland?
Or how come YOU make up answers and call Warren Commission testimony 'boring', instead of reading the testimony and obtaining the answers?
Or why are YOU relying on 33-years after the fact recollections to build their case, instead of the contemporaneous evidence?
Or why do YOU cite a study, but ignore the expert conclusions, and substitute YOUR OWN non-expert conclusions for those of the actual experts?
You couldn't reconcile the autopsy witnesses claim that the doctors probed the throat wound with the FBI story that they always thought the throat wound was a tracheotomy.
You couldn't reconcile the cranial opening visible on the back wound photo with Dr. Finck's testimonies that he saw an entry wound within the area of skull that was removed for said cranial opening.
You couldn't reconcile the grassy knoll earwitnesses with the HSCA earshot study which provided no evidence that the acoustics in Dealey Plaza would distort the noise of a shot enough.
I just tend to stop responding when I feel like the replies aren't sufficiently concerned with the truth.
False. I pointed out that David Lifton covered the various transmissions of the information in his book BEST EVIDENCE. He spoke of the transmission of two different sets of conclusions - the FBI conclusions vs what he calls the Navy (Bethesda Doctors) conclusions and traced out how those conclusions were disseminated through news reports. He credited Judge Fein with coming up with the argument originally, and showed how the FBI conclusion was based on the autopsy conclusion at the end of the autopsy that night, but how the Navy conclusion was based on the revised conclusion after the Bethesda doctors learned of a throat wound that the trache was made through the next morning. I went into great detail on this, you ignored it all.
Not so fast. Doug Horne reckons that since the FBI left the autopsy at 11 PM, and carried the conclusions about the throat wound being a tracheotomy with them, it is only then that Friday night that Dr. Perry informed them that the throat wound was originally a bullet hole, and NOT Saturday morning like we've always been told. Then, after that is when the throat wound would have been probed.
From Dr. Malcolm Perry's Warren Commission testimony:
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. I did what appeared to me to be medically expedient. And when I informed him that there was a wound there and I suspected an underlying wound of the trachea and even perhaps of the great vessels he advised me that he thought this action was correct and he said he could not relate to me any of the other findings.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you relate to me in lay language what necropsy is?
Dr. PERRY - Autopsy, postmortem examination.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the content of the second conversation which you had with Comdr. Humes, please?
Dr. PERRY - The second conversation was in regard to the placement of the chest tubes for drainage of the chest cavity. And I related to him, as I have to you, the indications that prompted me to advise that this be done at that time.
We already have a whisper from Dr. Perry himself that a phone call might've happened on Friday, the day the President died, but apparently he "understood" it was Saturday. Hmmm. And as Doug Horne points out, Dr. Perry spoke of TWO phone calls to Dr. Humes, not just one like Humes always said.
Let's go to Nurse Audrey Bell's interview to the ARRB on 3/20/1997.
BELL: Can I just say one thing about the tracheostomy again?
- Please.
BELL: Saturday morning when I got over there, Doctor Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of course he had been, you know, primary until Dr. Clark came down there with the President. He sat down in a chair and he was- 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.’
Wowza. Do we have any corroboration from the guys at the autopsy that this is the case?
How about Dr. Ebersole's testimony to the HSCA on 3/11/1978?
EBERSOLE: I believe by ten or ten thirty approximately a communication had been established with Dallas and it was learned that there had been a wound of exit in the lower neck that had been surgically repaired. I don't know if this was premortem or postmortem but at that point the confusion as far as we were concerned stopped.
Dr. EBERSOLE. We can put this back on when we get the tape on but somewhere during the course of the evening the input came in from Dallas about the wound exit in the neck. That I think stopped the problem from my aspect of taking the X rays. I cannot tell you what time that was. The time is rather vague that night but it was quite late in the evening.
Dr. PETTY. Do you want him to repeat what he just said?
Mr. FLANAGAN. Yes, if you would, please.
Dr. EBERSOLE. The taking of the X rays again were stopped to the best of my remembrance once we had communication with Dallas and Dr. Humes had determined that there was a wounded exit in the lower neck anterior at the time that the President arrived at the hospital in Dallas. I think once that fact had been established that my part in the proceedings were finished.
Dr. PETTY. May I ask two questions further. One, did you see the wound in the neck and associate it with a bullet wound of exit after it had been pointed out that the tracheostomy had been through that area?
Dr. EBERSOLE. No, sir, I can't say that I did. After the dissection had started I saw the area that Dr. Humes was very interested in. He pointed out to us that this was a track running over the apex of the lung -- I think he used the term bruising the apex of the lung and pointed to the middle line. I remember the area was open and he was pointing this out to us. I cannot recollect if I saw this area again after that information was known to him.
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?
And we've already tallied up the autopsy witnesses who recalled probing of the throat, including some later half-hearted and vague admissions by the autopsy physicians themselves that by the end of the autopsy they thought the trach incision represented an exit.
False. You haven't shown there's any true conflict there, as you're relying on recollections from years after the fact to make an appearance of a conflict. But no one here is going to be convinced there's a problem because you found an apparent conflict between the hard evidence and someone's recollection from years later. I went into great detail on this, you ignored it all.
Nonstop total fail. Did you short-circuit when you saw how big the cranial opening was on the photograph you can see with your own two eyes?
False. I quoted both witnesses in Dealey Plaza who spoke of the confusion of sounds because of echoes and quoted the experts in that HSCA study that stated there was no reason to believe a rifle was fired from the Knoll. I also pointed out all the hard evidence confirming the witnesses who thought shots came from the Depository, and asked you to point out the evidence confirming the shots came from the knoll. You ignored that. As you ignored my request to name the supposed knoll witnesses you allege comprise 40 to 50 percent of the witnesses. You haven't named any. I went into great detail on this, you ignored it all.
And there were a lot more witnesses who thought shots literally came from that area. It doesn't matter either way, whatever happened the HSCA earshot study showed that it probably wasn't just a naked Carcano. The HSCA earshot study showed that a shot from the Depository sounds like a shot from the Depository and a shot from the Knoll sounds like a shot from the knoll. Now you want me to quote and dissect every single knoll witness with you? No thank you, you'll just resort to BS.
Not so fast. Doug Horne reckons that since the FBI left the autopsy at 11 PM, and carried the conclusions about the throat wound being a tracheotomy with them, it is only then that Friday night that Dr. Perry informed them that the throat wound was originally a bullet hole, and NOT Saturday morning like we've always been told. Then, after that is when the throat wound would have been probed.
Who cares what Doug "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" Horne *reckons*?
It's clear there are two lines of communication after the autopsy... the FBI version (no transit) and the Navy (Bethesda) version (transit). It's clear that the communication between Bethesda and Parkland happened after the FBI left, and the conclusion was revised. I said all that. None of what you quote changes that one iota. You're now reduced to quibbling over whether it was 8am on Saturday morning Washington time, or 3am on Saturday morning Dallas time.
It's a meaningless quibble. What difference does it make? Can you show how the difference of a few hours somehow means conspiracy? Or are you just quibbling for the sake of quibbling?
From Dr. Malcolm Perry's Warren Commission testimony:
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.
Perry isn't sure. You quote him merely to throw mud against the wall, hoping something sticks. But what's your point, exactly? That the call happened a few hours earlier than Humes testified? So what?
We already have a whisper from Dr. Perry himself that a phone call might've happened on Friday, the day the President died, but apparently he "understood" it was Saturday. Hmmm. And as Doug Horne points out, Dr. Perry spoke of TWO phone calls to Dr. Humes, not just one like Humes always said.
Perry also said "I didn't recall exactly when" the phone call(s) occurred. He admitted to not being sure. Pesky thing, that human memory. Failures of memory do not a conspiracy make. When do you intend to establish a conspiracy?
No, that's pretty much meaningless too, as it's simply his best guess after nearly 15 years had expired since the event. Do you really want us to believe that all these witnesses had crystal-clear recollections, unaffected by time, unaffected by what they read or saw or learned since then? That's what your argument requires.
There was no suturing done in Dallas. Clearly, Ebersole's recollection is flawed. How far that extends is clearly debatable. But you'd like us to believe his recollections about the time are crystal clear and not up for debate. Clearly they are debatable.
I honestly have no idea what you're alluding to about a short-circuit. What point are you trying to make? The Boswell drawing you compare to the autopsy photo is clearly meaningless. It was made nearly 34 years after the assassination. His recollections from that late date don't mean doodily-squat. But that's what you got, anomalies in recollections from more than a third of a century after the event. Who honestly thinks this kind of selection from the record is meaningful?
Curiously, you previously alleged the witnesses weren't reliable when it suited your purposes, now you allege they are. I think you need to plant both feet on one side of that fence.
...whatever happened the HSCA earshot study showed that it probably wasn't just a naked Carcano. The HSCA earshot study showed that a shot from the Depository sounds like a shot from the Depository and a shot from the Knoll sounds like a shot from the knoll.
I'm sorry, did I ask you for your opinion? No. As I explained, your opinion of the study is meaningless. What was the experts conclusions -- you know, the people who actually conducted the study? You avoid that like the plague, telling us only what you think. Nobody cares what you think.
Translation: You couldn't make a case for 40% - 50% of the witnesses being knoll witnesses to save your life. We understand. It's a heavy burden to be asked to prove your faith and not to have sufficient evidence to do so. You made the claim. It's still unproven. We're awaiting your proof.
Got any?
Apparently you want us to just accept your assertions without challenge. No, it doesn't work that way. You make claims, you need to prove them.
Your disinclination to post this material or even discuss further doesn't speak well for your assertions, and in fact, pretty much establishes the claim about the number of witnesses is false (as does your waffling on the exact percentage).
I once had an individual explain to my why the .50 BMG round was supernaturally (he used the term) deadly.
For my edification, he explained that the round traveled at such a high velocity and contained such energy that if the round passed a person within two feet without impacting them, the "shock wave" would break an arm or a leg as it missed, but if the round passed close by the head without hitting, the shock wave would shatter the skull.
No ****.
Until I encountered MJ here at ISF I thought I had maxxed out my lifetime ballistic ignorance quota, but this thread has provided much material. The "ventriloquist" suppressor has been a real comedy gem.
I once had an individual explain to my why the .50 BMG round was supernaturally (he used the term) deadly.
For my edification, he explained that the round traveled at such a high velocity and contained such energy that if the round passed a person within two feet without impacting them, the "shock wave" would break an arm or a leg as it missed, but if the round passed close by the head without hitting, the shock wave would shatter the skull.
No ****.
Until I encountered MJ here at ISF I thought I had maxxed out my lifetime ballistic ignorance quota, but this thread has provided much material. The "ventriloquist" suppressor has been a real comedy gem.
I use to fire a M113 mounted M2 and one time while engaging a flying target at the NTC I fired directly over my driver whose hatch was open, other than frightening him he survived! I do remember that the barrel was about 8 or so inches beyond his hatch but still damn close.
Not your opinion. Or the reckoning of a conspiracy theorist. Or the anomalous recollections from a third of a century after the assassination. Or assertions you make but cannot prove. Or what you read on some conspiracy site.
And there were a lot more witnesses who thought shots literally came from that area. It doesn't matter either way, whatever happened the HSCA earshot study showed that it probably wasn't just a naked Carcano. The HSCA earshot study showed that a shot from the Depository sounds like a shot from the Depository and a shot from the Knoll sounds like a shot from the knoll. Now you want me to quote and dissect every single knoll witness with you? No thank you, you'll just resort to BS.
To get an accurate accounting they would have had to recreate the scenario with the exact number of people present in Dealey Plaza, but not tell the stand-ins what's about to happen, otherwise all you get is cold observation without the distortion of shock and surprise which colors everything people think they see and hear.
They'd also have to perform that experiment 100 times to get a reliable data set.
If you're standing past the freeway sign on Elm the shot from the 6th floor sounds like it came from the overpass. If you're standing near the Grassy Knoll on the TSBD side the shot will come from behind you, but if you're across the street you'll hear the report echo from three different directions.
The obvious problem with a shot from the Grassy Knoll is that it didn't hit anything, and vanished into thin air.
Honestly, at this point you will have better luck blaming this on time travelers.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
