HSienzant
Philosopher
Let's again stress that it was the PARKLAND doctors that speculated that on the afternoon of the assassination, in the absence of any information about how many shots struck the President and lacking any information about where the shooter was (or shooters were, if you prefer).
This has nothing to do with whatsoever with anything the Bethesda doctors concluded.
It's not a lie. You've provided nothing attributable to any of the autopsy doctors that says that. You've in the past merely conjectured they considered that, then waited a week or so to state it was a fact.
Here's what you said originally: "Therefore, this is most likely information leaked to the media directly from the autopsy".
That was your conjecture. "Most likely" is simply your attempt to put the odds at this in your favor. In truth, the article you reference says the Parkland doctors were the source of the original conjecture, and it also says the autopsy hasn't happened yet. You ignore all that.
"Erroneous" is, once again, simply your opinion. You're again demonstrating the ability to both accept and deny anything you like and don't like from the same source. Some would call that cherry-picking. So while the article clearly references the autopsy hasn't happened yet, and also says the source of the claim about the path of a bullet into the neck and out the head came from the Parkland doctors, you apparently wish to discount all that, and cite the image which was drawn by some newspaper staff person to illustrate Ian Menzie's reported speculation that the Parkland doctors got the path reversed.
There's very few ways to draw that line from that illustration to make it come out the throat. In addition, look at the article - do the wounds described sound like the autopsy was the source?
The article says: "As it reached the throat, it pierced one or other of the two carotid arteries taking blood to and from the brain, or one or other of the two small jugular veins performing the same function, though with less pressure than in the main arteries. The bullet must also have shattered the windpipe which takes air into the lungs."
Where does the autopsy say anything like the above? It's not the source.
Really? When and where?
Ian Menzies cites his source as a Boston neurosurgeon. He is unnamed:
"How did the President die? Probably either through fast loss of blood or damage to the nervous system in the brain which controls breathing, or both, said a Boston neurosurgeon piecing the details together."
This is a perfect illustration of what happens when people speculate from insufficient detail. The Parkland doctors knew of only two of the four wounds to the President that would be found at autopsy. They speculated the wounds were connected as a neck entry and head exit. People further removed from the scene knew there were two wounds, and that the President was shot from a tall building behind him. Each, working with incomplete information, drew conclusions that were entirely reasonable to them, and totally wrong.
Much like you do here every day, likewise speculating from incomplete information.
And demolished. Among other things, you referenced Parkland doctor McClelland's mention of a fragment wound of the throat, conjecturing (despite no evidence) that McClelland got that info from the autopsy doctors. I showed that the memo you referenced was prepared at a time when Air Force 1 was still in the air, on its way back to Washington. The body wasn't even in the hands of the autopsy surgeons yet when McClelland wrote his memorandum for the record, contrary to your conjecture / speculation / WAG that the autopsy doctors were the source. So they could not be the source. And I quoted above, more recently, McClelland's admission that it was simply the Parkland doctor's conjecture, from the info they had, that the two wounds were connected.
Because it was already shot down previously and I can do it again.
I'm not playing to any crowd. I'm simply pointing out your errors. Let's rely on the facts to reach a conclusion instead of reaching a conclusion and relying on speculation and conjecture to justify the conclusion.
Witnesses are witnesses. Until dogs and cats learn to speak, humans are going to be all we have as witnesses, and humans are fallible. You need to learn to live with that.
Regarding the varying jacket descriptions, you never did choose one.
Why? - For the same reason Mark Lane chose not to go any further in his analysis of the witnesses jacket descriptions. It establishes witnesses are fallible, and they should not be relied on for fine details. That's true whether the witnesses are recalling the murder of a policeman scant hours after his murder, or the autopsy of a President decades after his murder.
And it's true whether you or Mark Lane like it or not.
And witnesses being fallible is something you don't want to admit or accept, because witness statements taken out of context and justified after the fact by speculation is really all you have.
Hank
Last edited:
