Well, thank you Hans for your rather modest accessment. Hank is up in way over a hundred instances of me claiming something without providing evidence. Good, since I found Hanks number somewhat inflated.
Agree?
Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge
- Thread starter BStrong
- Start date
- Status
Agree?
Not at all. Just a measurement discrepancy on a shattered skull during a rushed autopsy. This is exactly why we don't rely on ballpark estimations like "slightly" and we take photographs and x-rays to document exactly what we need to know.
Frankly, I'll bet you'd be shocked at how often autopsies get details wrong.
The issue is in what sense ”should” should be interpreted.
The reason for this ”should”, in the regulations cited.
There have to be a reason, doesn’t it?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
It's your claim. What do you
think? We've already determined that Sandy Larsen is an idiot.Hans
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 9,210
Thanks it sure does make you look bad doesn't it?
You need to start putting up your evidence....but well your ego just wouldn't support that now would it?
lol
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
It's your claim. What do you
There seems to be no shortage.......
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
There is no issue. "Should" in regulations has a specific meaning that has been explained to you by an expert in laws and regulations. The meaning you want it to have, and which it must have for your line of reasoning to hold, is the meaning expressed in regulatory language by the word "shall" or "must." Since those words were not used, the regulation does not have the force you're trying to give it. No amount of protest on your part changes these facts.
The reason has been given, but you simply don't want to hear it. The reason is that it specifies a desirable condition that can nevertheless be omitted if the transaction is otherwise compliant. In the case in question, the transaction was otherwise compliant.
- The autopsy of the century and the senior pathologists conflate the lowest part of the back of the head (EOP) with the uppermost part of the same back of the head? 4 inches to the opposite side of the back of the head? Occipital bone with parietal bone?
- The autopsy of the century and the pathologists can’t tell the difference between the lowest part of the right brain where a streak of tiny bullet fragments travels anatomically upwards forward, with the uppermost part of the right brain where a similar streak is seen traveling anatomically downwards forward?
- The autopsy of the century and the pathologists forget to report a big gaping wound in the right back of the head reaching all the way down to the EOP, in their autopsy report? In spite of drawing it on paper with the meassures written on it, still in evidence and confirmed by the pathologists?
- The autopsy of the century and the pathologists draw a big gaping wound in the right back of the head all the way down to the EOP not visible in the x-rays? Did they have a drunk elephant in the autopsy room?
- The autopsy of the century and the chief pathologist burns all of his original notes taken during the autopsy? Unlawful destruction of evidence?
- The autopsy of the century and the pathologists doesn’t notice a big shining artifact in the x-rays? That shines like a lighthouse? That ’happens’ to have the exact dimension of a slice of a Carcano bullet, 6.5 millimeter?
- The autopsy of the century and the pathologists was ordered ”by some general” not to probe any wounds for possible trajectories?
- The autopsy of the century and the pathologists did not contact the Parkland doctors for information of what they did and observe when trying to save the life of JFK?
- The autopsy of the century and almost all of the evidence has disappeard? The brain. Tissues. Bullet fragments. Bone fragments. Photographs. X-rays. Etc?
- The autopsy of the century and the chief pathologist in cahoots with a WC representative (Spekter) is instructing a completely novice forensic illustrator student (Rydberg) to draw the JFK headwounds and assumed bullet trajectory without access to the x-rays or the autopsy photos? From memory alone?
All this and much more, are to be expected, you say?
Last edited:
Axxman300
Philosopher
I posted links to the documents proving chain of evidence. They are legal documents, not CT claptrap. They prove you are wrong.
I am not going to play your games. Put on your bigboy pants and read them.
I can explain that one. If a CTist says it's true, it's usually not true.
They are not MY claims. They are the legally binding statements of the investigating officers of the Dallas Ploice Department. I do not dismiss their work off hand because, unlike you, I do not automatically distrust police offers I've never met.
If you are truly interested in truth you'd spend less time on CT sites and more time reading the actual, historical documents. It is all first-hand information written within hours or days of discovery by the people working the case.
I will no spoon-feed you.
Do you understand?
No one in the medical panel had any expertise authenticating photos or x-ray images. They were medical experts analysing the material AS IF authenticated. They were not authenticated by proper expertise or by witnesses to the autopsy, or by matching with the authentic camera used at the autopsy, or by the photographer/s allegedly taken the photographs.
The HSCA medical panel were lied to. As were members of the Parkland doctors and nurses, who therefore changed their minds, not wanting to challenge colleagues who presumably knew better.
They were lied to.
Last edited:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
What, in your
uninformed opinion, should have been done? Remember the relative value of a CT opinion.Axxman300
Philosopher
Nope.
Nope.
Nope. No gaping wound in the back of the skull,
Notes are not evidence, and he copied them onto non-bloodstained paper, that's all he did.
Since you've never read any of the depositions you have no idea what they did or didn't find.
Nope. Pathologists don't probe wounds, they use x-rays. And no general gave any order to that effect. That's Oliver Stone's fantasy.
Again, if you read their depositions you'd know they didn't have a lot of advanced warning that they would be conducting the autopsy, and the Kennedys were in a hurry.
The brain was interred with JFK's body when they moved it to the its final resting place under direct orders from RFK. Everything else is still in the archives.
I say you've wasted a lot of time reading bad information on CT sites.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Here's a good one:
It's hard to keep track. Is that one that you
made up previously and is already part of a list you haven't cited for? Or is this a new one?Wow, that is creepy. Yes, I’m doing my best to keep up with all of you and all of your crap barrage of ”requests” for evidence.
Promise.
Last edited:
Here's where I know you are completely out of your element and have not read the material you've been provided.
The medical panel did NOT authenticate the autopsy photos and x-rays. That job landed on a panel made up of photography experts, radiologists, anthropologists, optical scientists and other disciplines.
That information IS ON PAGE ONE OF THE REPORT!!!
Those experts validated that the subject in all of the material, both photographic and x-ray, is JFK, that all of the photos were taken at the same time, and that the photos are unaltered.
The medical panel used the same materials to judge the nature of Kennedy's wounds, as the material is verified as unaltered autopsy material featuring JFK and nobody else.
Is this really such a big mystery to you? Did you choke up like Kevin Costner did in the movie?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82#relPageId=38&tab=page
Second full paragraph for the gist of it all. Since you likely won't read the whole thing.
Will you be adding Robert Kennedy, his personal secretary, and the Kennedy family representative to your list of co-conspirators?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
The difference was 2 and a half to 3 inches at best. An easy mistake to make, considering they didn't measure the entry wound in the first place.
Does 2 inches count as "slightly"?
Were the pieces of JFKs skull shifting around while they held it together?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
TIL requests for evidence can be ignored by calling them crap.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
This imports to the participants the notion that they would be subjected to additional scrutiny. You are placing so much emphasis on the supposed rigor that would be needed only because you have the blessing of hindsight, of 50 years of conspiracy wrangling that retrospectively gave the autopsy more scrutiny. The autopsy is important to you, therefore you surmise it must have been of equal importance, and for the same reasons, to the participants. And then you impose an improper standard of proof based on that skewed perspective.
- Status