ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING!

Closed Thread
Old 8th March 2018, 01:40 PM   #521
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,760
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
If we're going to talk crowd reactions, in the Nix film you can see three men standing on the steps of the grassy knoll, one of them was Emmett Hudson, Dealey Plaza's groundskeeper. After the head-shot all three men turn, and run up the stairs toward the picket fence to get out of the line of fire.

Hudson said the shots came from above and behind, and claims he dove to the ground, but he is seen following the other men up the stairs.

If the shots came from over their shoulders they would have run a different direction.
From above and behind JFK's car- from his WC testimony, 7/22/64-
Quote:
Mr. LIEBELER- And after you saw him hit in the head, did you hear another shot?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you see that shot hit anything - the third shot?
Mr. HUDSON - No, sir. I'll tell you - this young fellow that was sitting there with me - standing there with me at the present time, he says, "lay down, Mister, somebody is shooting the President." He says, "Lay down, lay down." and he kept repeating, "Lay down." so he was already laying down one way on the sidewalk, so I just laid down over on the ground and resting my arm on the ground and when that third shot rung out and when I was close to the ground - you could tell the shot was coming from above and kind of behind.
Mr. LIEBELER - How could you tell that?
Mr. HUDSON - Well, just the sound of it.
Mr. LIEBELER - You heard it come from sort of behind the motorcade and then above?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes
; I don't know if you have ever laid down close to the ground, you know, when you heard the reports coming, but it's a whole lot plainer than it is when you are standing up in the air.
...
Mr. LIEBELER - But you are quite sure in your own mind that the shots came from the rear of the President's car and above it; is that correct?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you have any idea that they might have come from the Texas School Book Depository Building?
Mr. HUDSON - Well, it sounded like it was high, you know, from above and kind of behind like - in other words, to the left.
Mr. LIEBELER - And that would have fit in with the Texas School Book Depository, wouldn't it?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes.
You'll notice Hudson says there were three shots, and the shot he saw hit JFK in the head was the second, implying a missed third shot. All of which goes to show that witness testimony is only as good as the physical evidence it may or may not corroborate.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 02:06 PM   #522
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,676
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
If we're going to talk crowd reactions, in the Nix film you can see three men standing on the steps of the grassy knoll, one of them was Emmett Hudson, Dealey Plaza's groundskeeper. After the head-shot all three men turn, and run up the stairs toward the picket fence to get out of the line of fire.

Hudson said the shots came from above and behind, and claims he dove to the ground, but he is seen following the other men up the stairs.

If the shots came from over their shoulders they would have run a different direction.
Perfectly reasonable for Hudson to think that. The Bryan pergola (structure at the top of the grassy knoll) would be the perfect reflector for echoes from where the shots were actually fired from (TSBD)

Acoustics is a very complex science. The waveform relationships resulting from echoes reflected from complex shaped structures can give some baffling aural effects. It is perfectly possible for three people to be standing side by side near a complex structure such as the Bryan pergola to all hear the same sound and swear they came from three different directions. Anyone who has experienced the "Whispering Gallery" at St Paul's Cathedral in London will understand this.
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 04:36 PM   #523
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,401
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
From above and behind JFK's car- from his WC testimony, 7/22/64-


You'll notice Hudson says there were three shots, and the shot he saw hit JFK in the head was the second, implying a missed third shot. All of which goes to show that witness testimony is only as good as the physical evidence it may or may not corroborate.
I know. The interesting thing is that by the time he's on the ground the shooting has stopped. You can see him turn to run when JFK is hit in the head.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 04:43 PM   #524
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,401
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Perfectly reasonable for Hudson to think that. The Bryan pergola (structure at the top of the grassy knoll) would be the perfect reflector for echoes from where the shots were actually fired from (TSBD)

Acoustics is a very complex science. The waveform relationships resulting from echoes reflected from complex shaped structures can give some baffling aural effects. It is perfectly possible for three people to be standing side by side near a complex structure such as the Bryan pergola to all hear the same sound and swear they came from three different directions. Anyone who has experienced the "Whispering Gallery" at St Paul's Cathedral in London will understand this.
I've said that going to Dallas ended my CT illness.

While I was there they were filming the first X-Files movie a few blocks away, and they were using helicopters. I grew up new Fort Ord, and I learned to divine echoes and the Doppler Effect to spot Hueys, Blackhawks, and Cobras. The echo in Dealey Plaza was excessive. I couldn't track the choppers at all, which was the first and only time that's happened.

Plus, in my youth I did studio guitar work, and spent a lot of time in different rooms where the sound was either good or awful. The engineers always made the recordings sound good, and were happy to explain how sound worked in relation to the different instruments.

So I fall back on my stance that what a person heard during the assassination depended on where they were standing.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 08:57 PM   #525
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,877
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Perfectly reasonable for Hudson to think that. The Bryan pergola (structure at the top of the grassy knoll) would be the perfect reflector for echoes from where the shots were actually fired from (TSBD)

Acoustics is a very complex science. The waveform relationships resulting from echoes reflected from complex shaped structures can give some baffling aural effects. It is perfectly possible for three people to be standing side by side near a complex structure such as the Bryan pergola to all hear the same sound and swear they came from three different directions. Anyone who has experienced the "Whispering Gallery" at St Paul's Cathedral in London will understand this.
Experimental evidence trumps all. The HSCA experiments don't support what you're hypothesizing.

Last edited by MicahJava; 8th March 2018 at 08:58 PM.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 08:59 PM   #526
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,877
deleted
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 09:00 PM   #527
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,401
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Experimental evidence trumps all. The HSCA experiments don't support what you're hypothesizing.
The physical evidence trumps all.

The physical evidence (ballistics, fiber, autopsy) all points to Oswald as the lone shooter.

Thanks for playing.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 09:02 PM   #528
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,369
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
deleted
Did you accidentally answer a question and had to hurry to delete it?

Keep running away, MicahJava. Don't ever change.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 09:46 PM   #529
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,660
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Experimental evidence trumps all. The HSCA experiments don't support what you're hypothesizing.
And we're back to earwitness testimony?

Post 208, this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=208

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Axxman300, how many times do i have to tell you. There does not need to be a gunman on the knoll to explain the perceived loud report(s) originating from the knoll. A rear shooter may have been able to replicate this acoustical anomaly by using a noise-suppressor in conjunction with supersonic ammunition. The evidence gathered by the HSCA earshot experiment indicates that a high-powered rifle fired from the snipers nest cannot explain the knoll witnesses.


MJ recycles another argument from ignorance - from March 2017:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2639

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
BStrong is BS-strong. Just google "silencer", "noise", "opposite direction" and you'll find people on gun forums discussing this well-known phenomenon, to the point of some suggesting it's benefit in hunting. Why do you have to lie instead of honestly debate?

Insecure table pounding noted.

The "phenomenon" you reference is nothing more than the perception of the earwitness and is not related to the use of a suppressor.

Let's review what you posted about suppressors:

Noise suppressors can distort the sound of a gunshot to seem like it came from the opposite direction. But of course, noise suppressors don't make the muzzle blast completely silent.

You are asserting that a suppressor as a device causes an earwitness to believe that the shooter is in the opposite direction from the actual position of the shooter.

This isn't a phenomenon that is caused by the can. As I've pointed out repeatedly, earwitness testimony can be unreliable for a number of reasons.

I posted my most embarrassing moment with my "it's gotta be a shotgun" 911 call and in the example of one of my friends that witnessed the murder, he didn't hear the pistol being fired within ten feet of him and the piece wasn't suppressed. He target fixated on the gun and the victim, saw the thing cycle and eject the empty case but didn't hear the shot.

For the purposes of your fantasy, a ventriloquist suppressor might be a very cool thing, but there is no such thing. People who hear loud noises react to and interpret to those noises in different ways. If a person is untrained they might not even notice the sound of a projectile passing close by, or someone hearing the same projectile at a different point in the projectile's trajectory nearby static objects might interpret that single projectile as being multiple projectiles due to the "crack" as passes them.

Smart well-trained guy might be completely wrong about a sound they heard.

No suppressor needed.

What I'd like to see from you is some evidence of one of these cool ventriloquist suppressors. It would go great with my Hush-a-Bomb.

As far as lying goes. I can't even turn it around on you.

You don't know enough about the subject matter to lie about it. You do confuse fact, fantasy and wish fulfillment, but that's par for the course. And that's why when you're going to stick your baby toe into the ocean of facts concerning firearms in general and this case in particular you're not going to like the bath that you'll end up taking.

A debate requires two or more well informed individuals to participate.

In this arena you do not qualify as being well informed.

XXXXX

And since MJ is so into recycling, here's another post from March 2017 that I'm sure he won't mind seeing again:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2581

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Silliest discussion ever. The situation in Dealey Plaza, as reported by dozens of witnesses who were there compared to the findings of the two observers in the HSCA earshot experiment, was nothing like what you would expect from three shots fired from a Carcano. The only thing that could discredit the HSCA earshot experiment would be a similar, but more exhaustive experiment with more observers. But what happens when that just further confirms the same thing as the HSCA? Do you say half the witnesses to the assassination simultaneously had the same auditory hallucination?

The HSCA earshot experiments and the assassination witness statements are enough to almost certainly know that the situation in Dealey Plaza wasn't just three shots from a Carcano.


I've gone multiple rounds with multiple posters in this thread that want to hang their hat on "earwitness" reports. Rather than repost all the earlier material, I'll hit the high points:

In response to a ctist that believed the muzzle blast was caused by the velocity of the projectile, not the expanding gases that propel the projectile:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=348

Same poster, same jive, no evidence and like many folks on that side of the street, -0- knowledge of the actual subject matter:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=372

More from the world's most poorly informed JFK fantasist:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=403

Early appearance of Micahjava working the wrong side of the street:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1250

This one is just me describing some earwitness reports that were interesting and germane to the discussion, including one of my own most embarrassing moments:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1266

And here's that moment:

"#3

Me.

At home.

Loud hollow boom, not bang.

First report gets my attention, second boom maybe two minutes later.

Hollow, boom not bang, not handgun, not rifle, has to be a 12 gauge shotgun.

I get on the horn, while on phone, more reports.

I report to 911 dispatcher what I heard.

Maybe three minutes later I get a call from the responding officer informing me that the "flat hollow boom" I reported as a shotgun being fired was in reality a truck driver having difficulty with his tractor. The flat hollow boom was un-burned diesel combusting in the tractors' exhaust stack...and yes, my balls were broken for a long time behind the 911 call once the word got out, and it took all of 48 hrs to circulate through local LE and into my agency

Ear witness testimony is subjective at best, and all manner of factors can color the report of an ear witness, or an eye witness for that matter."


Here's one of MJ's all time greatest misses and my response:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1152

"Lol. Some of the best snipers in the world have said that they could not replicate those shots, and they were alledgedly made with a dollar store with the most defective scope ever. I'm not aware anybody replicating the shots. I know of one experiment in which an olympic sniper accomplished something similar... from a height of the third floor of the school book depository."

To this day those "Worlds best snipers" have yet to make their opinions known through MJ and it's only been what? almost a year? The factual mistakes are hilarious. Great 'investigator" that doesn't even know which floor of the TSBD building the shots were fired from.

This one addresses MJ's "Worlds best" jive, and in looking this post up I realized that it's substantially the sane post I made in the last couple of days, referencing the same facts and using the same pictures. That might give some idea about how certain CTist posters react after their fantasies are refuted- they simply wait for an opportune moment to hit the reset button and try the same old jive that went TU the last time they tried pushing it:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1230

One of my all-time favorite local bands, Tower of Power. has a song titled "Diggin' on James Brown" and there's this lyric:

Ya know the more things change
The more they stay the same


That's what pops into my thoughts every time MJ brings up the same nonsense that didn't get him anywhere the first, second, third and infinitum times they posted it.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

What didn't succeed in 2017 didn't succeed two weeks ago and won't succeed today either.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 10:17 PM   #530
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,676
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Experimental evidence trumps all. The HSCA experiments don't support what you're hypothesizing.
Yet you won't accept the evidence from the tests carried out by Bob Baer. Why? Because you are a member of the CT Stupidati, and the CT Stupidati only accept evidence that fits their delusional world-view; they reject or hand-wave away evidence that doesn't fit.

Furthermore, I find it a real hoot that you unquestioningly accept the results of the HSCA Audio experiments, even though those results prove beyond any doubt whatsoever, that is possible, even likely, that some ear-witnesses could have been wrong about the directions sounds come from.
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

Last edited by smartcooky; 8th March 2018 at 10:22 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 08:29 AM   #531
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 999
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
...
Lol. Some of the best snipers in the world have said that they could not replicate those shots, and they were alledgedly made with a dollar store with the most defective scope ever. I'm not aware anybody replicating the shots. I know of one experiment in which an olympic sniper accomplished something similar... from a height of the third floor of the school book depository."

To this day those "Worlds best snipers" have yet to make their opinions known through MJ and it's only been what? almost a year? The factual mistakes are hilarious. Great 'investigator" that doesn't even know which floor of the TSBD building the shots were fired from.

...
And we know from several documentaries that "not the best snipers" in the world have demonstrated that they can make those shots.

MJ loses on so many levels, I wonder why he even bothers.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 12:21 PM   #532
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,654
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Experimental evidence trumps all. The HSCA experiments don't support what you're hypothesizing.
Actually they do. Quote the experts' conclusions of those experiments... or ignore them again.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 9th March 2018 at 12:28 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 07:51 PM   #533
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,401
Learned something interesting and disturbing today about non-fiction writers I should pass along...

If someone writes a book about a historic event, or current state of affairs they have to pay for a fact-checker, the publishers no longer foot the bill, and that is expensive. Few authors can afford this cost, and many books get published without the information ever being double-checked.

The NYTimes fired all of their fact-checkers a few years ago.

The New Yorker is one of the few standouts where they are sticklers for verification.

I mention this because we get CT books thrown in our faces all the time, and most aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2018, 10:43 AM   #534
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,660
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Learned something interesting and disturbing today about non-fiction writers I should pass along...

If someone writes a book about a historic event, or current state of affairs they have to pay for a fact-checker, the publishers no longer foot the bill, and that is expensive. Few authors can afford this cost, and many books get published without the information ever being double-checked.

The NYTimes fired all of their fact-checkers a few years ago.

The New Yorker is one of the few standouts where they are sticklers for verification.

I mention this because we get CT books thrown in our faces all the time, and most aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
Or checked by amateurs that may or may not hold a pov on the event or the material.

In certain circles opinion is far more important than fact.

We have ample evidence of that in this thread from a certain member of that circle.

ETA my bolded - for an example see Arming America by Michael Bellesiles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arming_America
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus

Last edited by BStrong; 10th March 2018 at 10:46 AM.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2018, 07:45 PM   #535
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,877
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
...

You should grasp at this point that I simply do not care about experimental evidence involving somebody sitting on a chair aiming at a stationary, level target.

Also on the noise suppressors:

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
A short list of the gun enthusiasts I found online discussing the "opposite direction" phenomenon just by using google:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2882
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Ooh found another one.

VjjR on snipershide.com says:



https://forum.snipershide.com/thread...xcr-308.70666/

Last edited by MicahJava; 10th March 2018 at 07:47 PM.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2018, 07:49 PM   #536
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,877
Okay, the vast majority of the evidence indicates that the autopsy pathologists lied about their ignorance of the throat wound at the time of the autopsy. Does anybody have any argument about this? My evidence for that has already been stated pages and pages before.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2018, 08:44 PM   #537
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,676
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Okay, the vast majority of the evidence indicates that the autopsy pathologists lied about their ignorance of the throat wound at the time of the autopsy. Does anybody have any argument about this? My evidence for that has already been stated pages and pages before.
One of the pathologists was pressured by the media to make a statement. He said that the throat wound was an entry wound, but said this before he had seen the GSW in JFK's upper back. Once he saw that GSW he realised he was wrong about the throat wound. Unlike Conspiracy Theorists, this is what REAL investigators and REAL scientists do when they discover evidence that does not fit their opinion... they change their opinion, their don't hand wave the evidence away.
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2018, 08:49 PM   #538
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,401
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You should grasp at this point that I simply do not care about experimental evidence involving somebody sitting on a chair aiming at a stationary, level target.
Oswald was sitting fairly comfortably, and once the car had cleared the oak trees he had a mostly static target, while it was moving away from him there was no lateral motion. Hence the easiest shot in history.

Quote:
Also on the noise suppressors:
There weren't any used.

You just wasted our time posting the Willis pictures which give a clear view of the background and no possible second shooter is seen.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2018, 08:58 PM   #539
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,401
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Okay, the vast majority of the evidence indicates that the autopsy pathologists lied about their ignorance of the throat wound at the time of the autopsy.
Wrong.

The majority of the clap-trap you believe to be evidence says what you want it to say. Out here in the real world Humes and Finck have been consistently open about missing that call on the throat.

More important is that you have FAILED to show why this is important in any way. If they lied about the throat wound then why would they say anything at all? Who would know?

Then you have to walk us through the decision-making process about deciding to lie about this non-issue, and then calling Parkland to ask about the throat wound after the autopsy. How does this help a conspiracy by making the pathologist look like they rushed their work when the "Official Story" needed to be air tight?

Do you even understand how a conspiracy works?
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2018, 09:00 PM   #540
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,401
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
One of the pathologists was pressured by the media to make a statement. He said that the throat wound was an entry wound, but said this before he had seen the GSW in JFK's upper back. Once he saw that GSW he realised he was wrong about the throat wound. Unlike Conspiracy Theorists, this is what REAL investigators and REAL scientists do when they discover evidence that does not fit their opinion... they change their opinion, their don't hand wave the evidence away.
Almost as if both pathologists were experienced, and had seen many tracheotomies in the past, and disregarded the throat wound by reflex.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2018, 09:29 PM   #541
Stamuel
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 553
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Okay, the vast majority of the evidence indicates that the autopsy pathologists lied about their ignorance of the throat wound at the time of the autopsy. Does anybody have any argument about this? My evidence for that has already been stated pages and pages before.
Here are some thoughts I have put together after reading your sources in this thread.

To prove that the autopsy doctors all lied together, you at least need to show that the evidence is inconsistent with the autopsy concluding before the phone call from Bethesda to Perry (that is, the call during which the autopsy doctors learned that the tracheotomy covered a bullet wound). If the evidence is consistent with the autopsy ending first, then there is no reason to think the doctors lied. Their testimony on this point would be consistent with the other evidence.

As it turns out, there is a lot of evidence that supports the doctor’s time line.

First, some things that appear to be supported by all available evidence, and appear to be agreed upon by all sides (correct me if I am wrong):
  • The final casket arrived at Bethesda around 2:00 AM.
  • The final casket containing JFK left Bethesda between 3:30 AM and 4:00 AM.

Here is some evidence:


The autopsy doctors
Though you reject them all as liars, the autopsy doctors’ testimony still exists.

They all said that they only found out about the throat wound after the autopsy. The testimony of those directly involved is all consistent about this. This supports the claim that they found out about the throat wound after the autopsy.

Further, Humes said the autopsy ended around 11PM and he called Perry Saturday morning. At some point, he said it was 9 or 10 in the morning. If he is correct, the call was well after the end of the autopsy.


Perry and the phone call
Perry gave the earliest estimate of the time of the phone call. Here is his testimony:

Quote:
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.
Vague, but he tentatively remembers it as Friday. Friday in Dallas ends at 1AM Bethesda time. Most people would describe 1AM Saturday as “Late Friday night,” so his testimony could be consistent with a call at 2AM. It is hard to say, since he is so unsure and vague. Midnight Dallas (1AM Bethesda) is certainly consistent with his testimony.

This is the earliest anyone said the phone call was, as far as I am aware. Any estimate that puts the end of the autopsy before 1AM Bethesda time is consistent with Perry’s admittedly vague testimony.


Embalming timing
Here is how the autopsy is described in contemporaneous documentation: “UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF MR. HAGAN, THE EMBALMING, COSMETICS, RESTORATION (EXTENSIVE CRANIAL DAMAGE), DRESSING AND CASKETING WAS COMPLETED BY 4 A.M. ON SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1963.”

That is a lot of work to do, and 3 hours is a reasonable estimate. If the embalming, cosmetics, restoration, dressing, and casketing took 3 hours total, this alone would put the end of the autopsy before 1AM. As we will see later, there is a testimony suggesting that it did take 3 hours.


Hagan’s direct statement
Hagan, of Gawler’s funeral home, stated that “the embalming began shortly after midnight, and concluded about 3 A. M.” This puts the end of the autopsy at shortly after midnight at the latest.

(Hagan had a hard time remembering what went on. He recalled arriving with the casket, but also recalled arriving “no later than 12:30AM.” But the casket arrived at 2AM. His testimony cannot all be correct, as he himself later realized. Nevertheless, he directly testified to the embalming starting shortly after midnight.)


Agent Sibert leaves
FBI Agent James Sibert said he left before midnight. He also said he left at the end of the autopsy. This is how he described the scene as he was leaving the autopsy:

Quote:
I don't recall much activity, because they were getting things together, Boswell had been making some drawings there. And Humes had his notes and material. And I think it was sort of a summation getting together, the receipt and all that, and the photographs and the packs of film and X-rays.
If we take Sibert at his word, the doctors were not even attending to the body at the time he left. He testified that the doctors were gathering records, completing the final cataloguing, and filling out paperwork after the autopsy. You have tried very hard to dismiss his testimony as irrelevant by saying he just assumed the autopsy was over, but it is much stronger than that. He witnessed them stop working on the body and start working on the concluding paperwork.

This is consistent with the doctors learning about the throat wound after the autopsy.


Kellerman estimates the times
During Kellerman’s WC testimony, he often that he used estimates of duration, rather than specific memory of the time, to determine when events occurred. Still, he supports an early autopsy end time (and a 2AM end time). At one point he states:

Quote:
So at the latest, 7:30, they began to work on the autopsy. And, as I said, we left the hospital at 3:56 in the morning. Let's give the undertaker people 2 hours. So they were through at 2 o'clock in the morning. I would judge offhand that they worked on the autopsy angle 4 1/2, 5 hours.
When Specter asked, “about what time, then, did they [the embalming team] complete their work?” Kellerman replied, “They were all through at 3:30.”

If we accept his most confident statement—that the autopsy began by 7:30—and also accept that the autopsy was 4.5 to 5 hours, then the autopsy ended between midnight and 12:30 AM. If we accept his two hour estimate for embalming and his statement that they were through by 3:30AM, then they began at 1:30AM. The autopsy must have ended earlier than that.

This is consistent with the doctors learning about the throat wound after the autopsy.


Manchester writes a book
This description comes from Manchester’s The Death of a President.

Quote:
The autopsy team had finished its work, a grueling, three-hour task, interrupted by the arrival of a fragment of skull which had been retrieved on Elm Street and flown east by federal agents.
[…]
The cosmetician then went to work. In Hagan’s words, “He was really under the gun. There were about thirty-five people, led by General Wehle, breathing down our necks. We were worrying about skull leakage, which could be disastrous. We did not know whether the body would be viewed or not.” The application of cosmetics required nearly three hours. It was quite unnecessary, but that was not the undertakers’ fault.
If the autopsy took about the hours, that would put its end at about 10:30PM. If the embalming took almost 3 hours, that would mean it started by 1 AM, probably earlier. That would mean the autopsy had to have ended earlier.

This is consistent with the doctors learning about the throat wound after the autopsy.


Lipsey
Here is what Lipsey had to say:

Quote:
So, we watched the autopsy. Once again, my hours are a little fuzzy. The autopsy lasted approximately, if I'm not mistaken, approxiately 3 - 4 hours. After that we stayed in the room. When the men from the funeral home came in, because, by this time when Gen Wehle had come back down, but he was in and out. He was still making a lot of arrangements, but he would come in occasionally for a couple of minutes to let me go out and take a little break. Then the men from the funeral home came in and we sat there while they more or less put him back together and made the cosmetic, made the different cosmetic changes that had to be made on the body.
[…]
The autopsy was Friday night. I remember we left after the autopsy. I was sitting there with Sam. the funeral people put Kennedy back together. That took almost as long as the autopsy. It was sometime in the very early hours of the morning. I've got that documented at home. I guess it was sometime between 3 and 4 in the morning. We finally finished and we put the body back into the hearse. And Jackie Kennedy came down and got into the hearse with the body herself. Still had on the pink suit -- she hadn't changed clothes.
Everything about this supports a midnight end for the autopsy. If the autopsy started between 7 and 8PM and lasted 3 to 4 hours, that puts the end before midnight. If the funeral people took almost as long as the autopsy and they finished between 3 and 4AM, that means they started by about 1AM.

This is consistent with the doctors learning about the throat wound after the autopsy.


Enough for now
That is a lot of evidence supporting the autopsy doctors. It is hard to conclude they are lying, especially when there is no coherent reason for them to do so. I know you have presented evidence for a different conclusion, but your conclusion requires the evidence is inconsistent with the doctors learning about the throat wound after the autopsy. All this evidence supporting the doctors makes your already difficult task that much more difficult, in a way you have never acknowledged.
__________________
A+
Stamuel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2018, 04:48 AM   #542
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,877
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
One of the pathologists was pressured by the media to make a statement. He said that the throat wound was an entry wound, but said this before he had seen the GSW in JFK's upper back. Once he saw that GSW he realised he was wrong about the throat wound. Unlike Conspiracy Theorists, this is what REAL investigators and REAL scientists do when they discover evidence that does not fit their opinion... they change their opinion, their don't hand wave the evidence away.
I havean't yet encountered this level of confusion. The Parkland staff didn't claim to see a wound in the back, and when informed they never contradicted anything they said about the appearence of the throat wound.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2018, 06:09 AM   #543
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,369
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I havean't yet encountered this level of confusion. The Parkland staff didn't claim to see a wound in the back, and when informed they never contradicted anything they said about the appearence of the throat wound.
How many entrance and exit wounds did they find in the skull?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2018, 06:43 AM   #544
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,654
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Okay, the vast majority of the evidence indicates that the autopsy pathologists lied about their ignorance of the throat wound at the time of the autopsy. Does anybody have any argument about this?
Everyone here has had argument about that with you. You essentially either hand-waved the counter-arguments away, or ignored them and repeated your own. You never addressed the counter-arguments and the counter-evidence. And when stuck for a response, you would vanish for a few days or a week, and come back and change the subject.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
My evidence for that has already been stated pages and pages before. [emphasis added]
You're doing it again. Confusing your beliefs with evidence. They are not the same thing.

The testimony of the autopsy doctors is evidence.

Your arguments about what they said, and your interpretations of what they meant are not evidence.

Your arguments are not evidence.
Your interpretations are not evidence.
Your beliefs are not evidence.


You have no evidence.

You have nothing.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 11th March 2018 at 07:16 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2018, 06:46 AM   #545
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,654
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I havean't yet encountered this level of confusion. The Parkland staff didn't claim to see a wound in the back, and when informed they never contradicted anything they said about the appearence of the throat wound.
The wound was said to be entirely compatible with an exit wound, which is what the autopsy said it was.

Mr. SPECTER - And are the findings in the autopsy report consistent with your observations and conclusions concerning the source and nature of the President's wounds?
Dr. PERRY - Yes; they are. I think there are no discrepancies at all. I did not have that information initially, and as a result was somewhat confused about the nature of the wounds, as I noted--I could not tell whether there was one or two bullets, or from whence they came, but the findings of the autopsy report are quite compatible with those findings which I noted at the time that I saw the President.
Mr. SPECTER - And have you noted in the autopsy report the reference to the presence of a wound on the upper right posterior thorax Just above the upper border of the scapula, being 7 by 4 mm. in oval dimension and being located 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process?
Dr. PERRY - Yes; I saw that.
Mr. SPECTER - Assuming that was a point of entry of a missile, which parenthetically was the opinion of the three autopsy surgeons, and assuming still further that the missile which struck the President at that spot was a 6.5-mm. jacketed bullet shot from a rifle at a distance of 160 to 250 feet, having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second, and that upon entering the President's body, the bullet traveled between two strap muscles, through a fascia channel, without violating the pleural cavity, striking the trachea, causing the damage which you testified about being on the interior of the President's throat, and exited from the President's throat in the wound which you have described in the midline of his neck, would your findings and observations as to the nature of the wound on the throat be consistent with the set of facts I just presented to you?
Dr. PERRY - It would be entirely compatible.
Mr. SPECTER - And what is the basis for your conclusion that the situation that I presented to you would be entirely compatible with your observations and findings?
Dr. PERRY - The wound in the throat, although as I noted, I did not examine it minutely, was fairly small in nature, and an undeformed, unexpanded missile exiting at rather high speed would leave very little injury behind, since the majority of its energy was expended after it had left the tissues.
Mr. SPECTER - And would the hole that you observed on the President's throat then be consistent with such an exit wound?
Dr. PERRY - It would. There is no way to determine from my examination as to exactly how accurately I could depict an entrance wound from an exit wound, without ascertaining the entire trajectory. Such a wound could be produced by such a missile.


Dr. Perry said a wound in the back could exit the throat and leave the wound he saw.

We're done here.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 11th March 2018 at 06:48 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2018, 07:00 AM   #546
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,877
Originally Posted by Stamuel View Post
Here are some thoughts I have put together after reading your sources in this thread.

To prove that the autopsy doctors all lied together, you at least need to show that the evidence is inconsistent with the autopsy concluding before the phone call from Bethesda to Perry (that is, the call during which the autopsy doctors learned that the tracheotomy covered a bullet wound). If the evidence is consistent with the autopsy ending first, then there is no reason to think the doctors lied. Their testimony on this point would be consistent with the other evidence.

As it turns out, there is a lot of evidence that supports the doctor’s time line.

First, some things that appear to be supported by all available evidence, and appear to be agreed upon by all sides (correct me if I am wrong):
  • The final casket arrived at Bethesda around 2:00 AM.
  • The final casket containing JFK left Bethesda between 3:30 AM and 4:00 AM.

Here is some evidence:


The autopsy doctors
Though you reject them all as liars, the autopsy doctors’ testimony still exists.

They all said that they only found out about the throat wound after the autopsy. The testimony of those directly involved is all consistent about this. This supports the claim that they found out about the throat wound after the autopsy.

Further, Humes said the autopsy ended around 11PM and he called Perry Saturday morning. At some point, he said it was 9 or 10 in the morning. If he is correct, the call was well after the end of the autopsy.


Perry and the phone call
Perry gave the earliest estimate of the time of the phone call. Here is his testimony:



Vague, but he tentatively remembers it as Friday. Friday in Dallas ends at 1AM Bethesda time. Most people would describe 1AM Saturday as “Late Friday night,” so his testimony could be consistent with a call at 2AM. It is hard to say, since he is so unsure and vague. Midnight Dallas (1AM Bethesda) is certainly consistent with his testimony.

This is the earliest anyone said the phone call was, as far as I am aware. Any estimate that puts the end of the autopsy before 1AM Bethesda time is consistent with Perry’s admittedly vague testimony.


Embalming timing
Here is how the autopsy is described in contemporaneous documentation: “UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF MR. HAGAN, THE EMBALMING, COSMETICS, RESTORATION (EXTENSIVE CRANIAL DAMAGE), DRESSING AND CASKETING WAS COMPLETED BY 4 A.M. ON SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1963.”

That is a lot of work to do, and 3 hours is a reasonable estimate. If the embalming, cosmetics, restoration, dressing, and casketing took 3 hours total, this alone would put the end of the autopsy before 1AM. As we will see later, there is a testimony suggesting that it did take 3 hours.


Hagan’s direct statement
Hagan, of Gawler’s funeral home, stated that “the embalming began shortly after midnight, and concluded about 3 A. M.” This puts the end of the autopsy at shortly after midnight at the latest.

(Hagan had a hard time remembering what went on. He recalled arriving with the casket, but also recalled arriving “no later than 12:30AM.” But the casket arrived at 2AM. His testimony cannot all be correct, as he himself later realized. Nevertheless, he directly testified to the embalming starting shortly after midnight.)


Agent Sibert leaves
FBI Agent James Sibert said he left before midnight. He also said he left at the end of the autopsy. This is how he described the scene as he was leaving the autopsy:



If we take Sibert at his word, the doctors were not even attending to the body at the time he left. He testified that the doctors were gathering records, completing the final cataloguing, and filling out paperwork after the autopsy. You have tried very hard to dismiss his testimony as irrelevant by saying he just assumed the autopsy was over, but it is much stronger than that. He witnessed them stop working on the body and start working on the concluding paperwork.

This is consistent with the doctors learning about the throat wound after the autopsy.


Kellerman estimates the times
During Kellerman’s WC testimony, he often that he used estimates of duration, rather than specific memory of the time, to determine when events occurred. Still, he supports an early autopsy end time (and a 2AM end time). At one point he states:



When Specter asked, “about what time, then, did they [the embalming team] complete their work?” Kellerman replied, “They were all through at 3:30.”

If we accept his most confident statement—that the autopsy began by 7:30—and also accept that the autopsy was 4.5 to 5 hours, then the autopsy ended between midnight and 12:30 AM. If we accept his two hour estimate for embalming and his statement that they were through by 3:30AM, then they began at 1:30AM. The autopsy must have ended earlier than that.

This is consistent with the doctors learning about the throat wound after the autopsy.


Manchester writes a book
This description comes from Manchester’s The Death of a President.



If the autopsy took about the hours, that would put its end at about 10:30PM. If the embalming took almost 3 hours, that would mean it started by 1 AM, probably earlier. That would mean the autopsy had to have ended earlier.

This is consistent with the doctors learning about the throat wound after the autopsy.


Lipsey
Here is what Lipsey had to say:



Everything about this supports a midnight end for the autopsy. If the autopsy started between 7 and 8PM and lasted 3 to 4 hours, that puts the end before midnight. If the funeral people took almost as long as the autopsy and they finished between 3 and 4AM, that means they started by about 1AM.

This is consistent with the doctors learning about the throat wound after the autopsy.


Enough for now
That is a lot of evidence supporting the autopsy doctors. It is hard to conclude they are lying, especially when there is no coherent reason for them to do so. I know you have presented evidence for a different conclusion, but your conclusion requires the evidence is inconsistent with the doctors learning about the throat wound after the autopsy. All this evidence supporting the doctors makes your already difficult task that much more difficult, in a way you have never acknowledged.
I have to leave overnight right now, I will get back to your comment soon.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2018, 07:02 AM   #547
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,654
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
One of the pathologists was pressured by the media to make a statement. He said that the throat wound was an entry wound,
You're thinking of Dr. Malcolm Perry in Parkland hospital, one of the doctors who tried to save JFK's life. None of the pathologists who performed the autopsy made any interim statements to the media or anyone else. Humes wrote up the autopsy results on Sunday morning, and it was submitted later that day.


Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
... but said this before he had seen the GSW in JFK's upper back.
That's correct. The Parkland doctors never saw the back wound, nor the rear entry head wound, because they never turned JFK over. They were most concerned - and reasonable so - with the massive head wound. Realistically, they had no chance to save JFK's life, but they had to try.


Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Once he saw that GSW he realised he was wrong about the throat wound.
Perry never saw the back wound. He was, however, given an opportunity to read the autopsy report, and he affirmed their conclusions were consistent with what he saw in Parkland. His testimony on that is quoted above.


Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Unlike Conspiracy Theorists, this is what REAL investigators and REAL scientists do when they discover evidence that does not fit their opinion... they change their opinion, their don't hand wave the evidence away.
That's correct.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 11th March 2018 at 07:04 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2018, 07:04 AM   #548
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,654
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I have to leave overnight right now, I will get back to your comment soon.
Of course you do. My post above explains the nature of this overnight trip very well.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=544

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 11th March 2018 at 07:09 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2018, 08:18 AM   #549
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,877
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Of course you do. My post above explains the nature of this overnight trip very well.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=544

Hank
It's called having a job.

I dedicate this NSFW song to you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0IkZ08M4k4

Not in an insulting way, necessarily. It is a legitimately catchy tune.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2018, 08:27 AM   #550
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,369
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I have to leave overnight right now, I will get back to your comment soon.
And you'll be able to answer all those pesky questions you've been running away from all this time? The ones that destroy your arguments so you don't dare answer them?

"Going to work" is a CTist's euphemism for what?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2018, 11:56 AM   #551
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,676
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
And you'll be able to answer all those pesky questions you've been running away from all this time? The ones that destroy your arguments so you don't dare answer them?

"Going to work" is a CTist's euphemism for what?
"Running away from hard questions".

At some time in the near future, he will be "back from work" which is also a euphemism... for fringe reset!
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th March 2018, 11:05 PM   #552
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,660
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You should grasp at this point that I simply do not care about experimental evidence

Also on the noise suppressors:
FIFY.

Quoting someone else that doesn't know what they're talking about doesn't constitute evidence of anything past ignorance.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2018, 10:34 AM   #553
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,877
Originally Posted by Stamuel View Post
Here are some thoughts I have put together after reading your sources in this thread.

To prove that the autopsy doctors all lied together, you at least need to show that the evidence is inconsistent with the autopsy concluding before the phone call from Bethesda to Perry (that is, the call during which the autopsy doctors learned that the tracheotomy covered a bullet wound). If the evidence is consistent with the autopsy ending first, then there is no reason to think the doctors lied. Their testimony on this point would be consistent with the other evidence.

As it turns out, there is a lot of evidence that supports the doctor’s time line.

First, some things that appear to be supported by all available evidence, and appear to be agreed upon by all sides (correct me if I am wrong):
  • The final casket arrived at Bethesda around 2:00 AM.
  • I am not so sure if the Mahogany casket arrived at the hospital at 2 AM.

    Remember, Kennedy aide David F. Powers wrote a contemporaneous journal (within November 22 and 23) which said "Around midnight Ken, Larry, and I picked out a coffin for our President". This was cited in William Manchester's book The Death of a President (relevant section here)

    Comparing the record, I have found no satisfying way to reconcile the notation "2 A.M." on the Gawler's Funeral Home "First Call Sheet" which records events of November 22-23,1963 with the 11 PM - 12 AM hospital arrival time indicated by Joseph E. Hagan. Above the "CASKET DELIVERY DETAILS" on the same document, it says "Arrangements:-When 11 p.m.". How does the Kennedy aide's casket selection "around midnight" fit into this? Although Tomas Evan Robinson and John Van Hoesen made statements to the HSCA, Lifton, ARRB, etc. that they arrived at the autopsy very early when the examination of the body had started, I tend to go with Joe Hagan who indicated that the Gawler's funeral team arrived around 11:00 PM - 12:00 AM. Joe Hagan, Tom Robinson, and John Van Hoesen have all made statements that they had to wait at least around half an hour until autopsy procedures were completed. Compare that to the statements of FBI agent James Sibert who always swore that he and Franis X. O'Neill departed Bethesda when the Gawler's funeral team arrived. Francis X. O'Neill himself told some very tall tales about staying at Bethesda long enough to witness the reconstruction, embalming, and dressing of Kennedy's body. We'll get to that later.

    From Harrison Livingstone's 1993 book Killing The Truth: Deceit and Deception in the JFK Case, here are the relevant parts of his interview with Joseph E. Hagan:

    (page 728)[...]

    Appendix J

    [...]

    PREPARING THE BODY FOR BURIAL

    Joe Hagen: "I had some guy screaming at us the whole time... some air force major... There was a lot of interference with the autopsy, I understand." (Interview of Hagen by Harrison Livingstone and Kathlee Fitzgerald)

    The professionals from Gawlers Funeral Home arrived while "they were proceeding with the most mortem... the head, I think the thoracic cavities and all, had been opened... our hearse took the (mahogany) casket out to the Naval Hospital late that evening... we dressed him and rolled the casket right in and put him in it." (Interview of Joe Hagen by Harrison Livingstone and Kathlee Fitzgerald, 8/15/91)


    [...]

    (page 740-741)[...]

    Appendix J

    [...]

    THE "SHIPPING CASKET" STORY

    A document discovered by Patrick Boyles surfaced, which originated at Gawlers Funeral Home in Washington, and was passed around at the 1992 Dallas A.S.K. Conference. The document had a handwritten notation on it which read "Body removed from metal shipping casket at USNH at Bethesda."

    Joe Hagan, the president of Gawlers, wrote this himself. (Interview with Kathlee Fitzgerald and the author, March 31, 1993.) Hagan explained that the confusion is over semantics. He told me that the use of the term "casket" cannot be confused with what bodies are normally shipped in, such as a Zigler case, an air tray, a combination casket, or a "shipping container" which he said is what the military normally ships a body in. He stated that it would always be called a "container" in that case, and is not considered a casket, nor would it be called a casket.

    Hagan went on to say that "The only reason we use that phrase was to identify the casket as a casket and as metal." He said that noone at Gawlers saw the body come out of the casket. nor was anyone from the funeral home there when the body arrived, but came much later, so they had no knowledge of it. He wrote the notation about a shipping casket because this is what he was told the body came in from Dallas. He said that noone would have called it a casket if it had been a shipping container or anything else, and that a casket is only called a casket if it is for viewing. (See Medical Encyclopedia Appendix for witnesses and events regarding the shipping casket.)


    And here is the ARRB's report of 5/17/1995 and 6/11/1996 interviews with Joe Hagan: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=713

    And Tom Robinson: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=711


    And John Van Hoesen: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=712

    Before the HSCA, the only interviews the Gawler's men ever did were with William Manchester for his 1967 book The Death of a President and Jim Bishop's 1968 book The Day Kennedy Was Shot.

    Relevant section from The Day Kennedy Was Shot here http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3041

    Quote:
  • The final casket containing JFK left Bethesda between 3:30 AM and 4:00 AM.
Correct.

Quote:
Here is some evidence:


The autopsy doctors
Though you reject them all as liars, the autopsy doctors’ testimony still exists.

They all said that they only found out about the throat wound after the autopsy. The testimony of those directly involved is all consistent about this. This supports the claim that they found out about the throat wound after the autopsy.

Further, Humes said the autopsy ended around 11PM and he called Perry Saturday morning. At some point, he said it was 9 or 10 in the morning. If he is correct, the call was well after the end of the autopsy.


Perry and the phone call
Perry gave the earliest estimate of the time of the phone call. Here is his 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.


Vague, but he tentatively remembers it as Friday. Friday in Dallas ends at 1AM Bethesda time. Most people would describe 1AM Saturday as “Late Friday night,” so his testimony could be consistent with a call at 2AM. It is hard to say, since he is so unsure and vague. Midnight Dallas (1AM Bethesda) is certainly consistent with his testimony.

This is the earliest anyone said the phone call was, as far as I am aware. Any estimate that puts the end of the autopsy before 1AM Bethesda time is consistent with Perry’s admittedly vague testimony.
Dr. Humes certainly was not talking about a phone call at 2 AM when he told his version of the Perry phone call story (by the way, Perry always described two separate phone calls with Humes, while Humes always reported one).

Dr. Humes gave an approximate 10:30 - 11:00 AM 11/23/1963 time for the Perry phone call, and indicated that he and Boswell indicated that they personally met together at the time of this phone call.

See the relevant section here:

Dr. BADEN. We're talking about also photographs Nos. 13 and 14. Did--in further discussing the exit perforation through the tracheotomy, did you have occasion to explore in the neck area beyond what is in the protocol, beyond what the description was? As to what was injured?

Dr. HUMES. Well, the trachea, I think we described the irregular or jagged wound of the trachea, and then we described a contusion in the apex of the lung and the inferior surface of the dome of the right pleural cavity, and that's one photograph that we were distressed not to find when we first went through and catalogued these photographs, because I distinctly recall going to great lengths to try and get the interior upper portion of the right thorax illuminated-you know the technical difficulties with that, getting the camera positioned and so forth, and what happened to that film, I don't know. There were a couple films that apparently had been exposed to light or whatever and then developed, but we never saw that photograph.

Dr. BADEN. From the time you first examined them, that particular photograph was never seen?

Dr. HUMES. Never available to us, but we thought it coincided very neatly with the path that ultimately we felt that that missile took.

Dr. BADEN. Continuing with the path. There is present in the X-rays Solne Opaque material to the right of the lower cervical spine which has been interpreted as being tiny bullet or bone fragments. Would the track, as you recall, be consistent with the missile striking a transverse process?

Dr. HUMES. Well, I must confess that we didn't make that interpretation at the time. I'm familiar with the writings of Dr. John Lattimer and of some reprints of his articles, and I'd have to go back and restudy it the way he has done. But as you can see from the point of entrance, it wasn't that far lateral. It could conceivably have nicked a--the edge of a transverse process.


...

Dr. HUMES. Laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound which I describe for your identification. You may wish to go back and look and add some corrections and whatever to this note. There's another fact of this. Having completed the examination, others might he interested in this--

Dr. BADEN. Yes. We're in session, Joe.

Dr. HUMES. Having completed the examination and remaining to assist the morticians in the preparation of the body, we did not leave the autopsy room until 5:30 or 6 in the morning. It was clearly obvious that a committee could not write the report. I had another commitment for that morning, a little later, a religious commitment with one of my children. And so I went home and took care of that, slept far several hours until about 6 in the evening of the day after, and then sat down and wrote the report that's sitting before you now myself, my own version of it. without any input other than the discussions that we thought that we had had, Dr. Boswell, Dr. Finck and myself. I then returned that morning and looked at what I had written--now wait, I'm a day ahead of myself---Saturday morning we discussed--

Dr. BOSWELL. Saturday morning we got together and we called Dallas.

Dr. HUMES. We called Dallas. See, we were at a loss because we hadn't appreciated the exit wound in the neck, we had been-- I have to go back a little bit. I think for your edification. There were four times as many people in the room most of the time as there are in this room at this moment, including the physician to the President, the Surgeon General of the Navy, the Commanding Officer of the Naval Medical Center, the Commanding Officer of the Naval Medical School, the Army, Navy, and Air Force aides to the President of the United States at one time or another, the Secret Service, the FBI and countless nondescript people who were unknown to me. Mistake No. 1. So, there was considerable confusion. So we went home. I took care of this obligation that I had. To refresh my mind, we met together around noon on Saturday, 11 in the morning, perhaps 10:30, something like that and---

Dr. BADEN. Now this is the day after?

Dr. HUMES. The day after, within 6 or 8 hours of having completed the examination, assisting Waller's and so forth for the preparation of the President's remains. We got together and discussed our problem. We said we've got to talk to the people in Dallas We should have talked to them the night before, but there was no way we could get out of the room. You'd have to understand that situation, that hysterical situation that existed. How we kept our wits about us as well as we did is amazing to me. I don't know how we managed as poorly or as well as we did under the circumstances. So I called Dr. Perry. Took me a little while to reach him. We had a very nice conversation on the phone in which he described a missile wound, what he interpreted as a missile wound, in the midline of the neck through which he had created a very quick emergency, as you can see from the photographs, tracheotomy incision effect destroying its value to us and obscuring it very gorgeously for us. Well, of course, the minute he said that to me, lights went on, and we said ah, we have some place for our missile to have gone. And then, of course, I asked him, much to my amazement, had he or any other physician in attendance upon the President, examined the back of the patient, his neck, or his shoulder. They said no, the patient had never been moved from his back while they were administering to him. So, the confusion that existed from some of his comments and the comments of other standby people in the emergency room in Dallas had been in the news media and elsewhere, so that added to the confusion. So, following that, and that discussion, and we having a meeting of minds as to generally what was necessary to be accomplished, and being informed by the various people in anthority that our gross report should be delivered to the White House physician no later than Sunday evening, the next day, 24 hours later, or not quite 24 hours later. Not having slept for about 48 hours, I went home and rested from noon until 8 or 10 that evening, Saturday evening, and then I sat down in front of other notes on which I had made minor comments, handwritten notes. I wrote the report which is present here. Now we also have here--and since it's in the record I want to comment about it some comments that I destroyed, some notes related to this, by burning in the fireplace of my home, and that is true. However, nothing that was destroyed is not present in this write-up. Now, why did I do that? It's interesting, and I've not spoken of this in public. Not too long here of this, I had had the experience of serving as an escort officer for some foreign physicians from foreign navies, who were being entertained and given a course of instruction in the United States. We had 20 or 30 of these chaps, and they used to come through every year or two, and I often was escort officer for them. They spent 5 weeks in Washington or 5 weeks in the field, then we went various places. We went to submarine bases and Marine Corps installations and naval training centers to teach them how physicians function in the American Navy. One of the places to which I happened to take them--and we tried to teach them a little Americana--I took them to Greenfield Village, which, as many of you know, Henry Ford set up adjacent to his former home in suburban Detroit, Dearborn. And in that location is a courthouse in which President Lincoln used to hold forth when he was riding the circuit, and these men were very impressed with that, and they knew who President Lincoln was and were impressed with his courthouse and many other things in Greenfield Village. But what I was amazed to find there, because I personally did not know it was there until I made that visit, was the chair in which President Lincoln sat when he was assassinated. Somehow or other they got that chair out of Ford's Theatre, and Henry Ford got it into Greenfield Village, and it's sitting in this courthouse. Now the back of that chair is stained with a dark substance, and there's much discussion to this day as to whether that stain represents the blood of the deceased President or whether it is Macassar. I don't know if you all remember what Macassar is. When people our age were young and you'd visit yoar grandmother, on the back of the sofa there were lovely lace doilies in the homes of many people. And if you recall what I'm speaking of--they were on the sofas and reclining chairs--and those lace doilies bear the name antimacassar. You could go to a store in this country and buy an anti macassar. They don't exist any more. And Macassar was a hair dressing that gentlemen wore in those days to keep their hair in place. And these officers were appalled that the American people would wish to have an object stained with the blood of the President on public display. And I was--it kind of bothered me a little bit-it still does, to this day. And here I was, now in the possession of a number of pieces of paper, some of which unavoidably, and in the confusion which I described to you earlier, were stained in part with the blood of our deceased President. And I knew that I would give the record over to some person or persons in authority, and I felt that these pieces of paper were inappropriate to be turned over to anyone, and it was for that reason and for that reason only, that, having transcribed those notes onto the pieces of paper that are before you, I destroyed those pieces of paper. I think I'd do the same thing tomorrow. I had a similar problem, because I felt they would fail into the hands of some sensation seeker.


And an 8:00 - 9:00 AM estimate for his 2/13/1996 ARRB interview:

Q. During the course of the autopsy--

A. Let me interrupt there. May I?

Q. Sure.

A. My problem is, very simply stated, we had an entrance wound high in the posterior back above the scapula. We didn't know where the exit wound was at that point. I'd be the first one to admit it. We knew in general in the past that we should have been more prescient than we were, I must confess, because when we removed the breast plate and examined the thoracic cavity, we saw a contusion on the upper lobe of the lung. There was no defect in the pleura anyplace. So it's obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung.
Of course, the more I thought about it, the more I realized it had to go out from the neck.
It was the only place it could go, after it was not found anywhere in the X-rays. So early the next morning, I called Parkland Hospital and talked with Malcolm Perry, I guess it was. And he said, Oh, yeah, there was a wound right in the middle of the neck by the tie, and we used that for the tracheotomy. Well, they obliterated, literally obliterated--when we went back to the photographs, we thought we might have seen some indication of the edge of that wound in the gaping skin where the--but it wouldn't make a great deal of sense to go slashing open the neck. What would we learn? Nothing, you know. So I didn't--I don't know if anybody said don't do this or don't do that. I wouldn't have done it no matter what anybody said. That was not important. I mean, that's--

Q. Do you know what the standard autopsy protocol is for gunshot wounds and autopsy of the neck?

A. Well, no. I haven't seen that in--what you say, standard, I mean, many times if you have a track of a missile, it's helpful to take a long probe and put it in the position. It can tell you a lot of things. If you know where the point of entrance and the point of exit are, it's duck soup. But for me to start probing around in this man's neck, all I would make was false passages. There wouldn't be any track that I could put a probe through or anything of that nature. It just doesn't work that way.

Q. Was any probe used at all to track the path--

A. I don't recall that there was. There might have been some abortive efforts superficially in the back of the neck, but no.
And if there's a standard protocol, I don't know where you'd find it, to tell you the truth.


...

Q. Dr. Humes, I'd like to go through the events as they occurred, as best you can recollect them, on November 26th, starting from--

A. 26th?

Q. Excuse me. November 22nd, starting in the afternoon. The first question I'd have for you would be whether you heard from anyone prior to the time the autopsy began about the nature of the wounds that President Kennedy had suffered.

A. Not at all.

Q. Are you familiar with the name of Robert Livingston, Dr. Robert Livingston?

A. Is this him? No, that's Harry Livingstone. No, I'm not.

Q. I'd like to show you a transcript of some testimony that he offered in the case of Crenshaw v. Sutherland?

A. May I ask who is Dr. Livingston?

Q. Yes.

A. Not the guy in the jungle.

Q. According to "Who's Who in America," Robert Livingston is a neuroscientist who received his undergraduate and medical degrees from Stanford University, and he was a resident at Stanford Hospital in San Francisco. In 1963, he was the chief of the Neurobiology Lab at the National Institute of Mental Health.

A. Okay.

Q. Does that help refresh your recollection of who Dr. Livingston is?

A. I don't know him from Adam, personally. I never heard of him before this minute, but I don't doubt his qualifications or whatever.

Q. I'd like you to take a moment, if you would, and read the deposition from page 23, line 1, to page 26, line 16.

You should also feel free to read any other part of the deposition that you'd like.

A. Now, where?

Q. Page 23, line 1. This is in microscript.

A. Page 22--okay. I see it now. Okay.
[Pause.]
BY MR. GUNN:
Q. For the record, the exhibit number is No. 24.

A. Well, this is ridiculous. I was at home at this time. He never talked to me, period. Absolutely never did talk to me. I don't need to read any further, to tell you the truth. I mean, I don't know what he's talking about. I was at home helping my wife prepare for a social event that night, and our first knowledge of the death of the President was when our children came home from school on the school bus, came in running, yelling, all screaming, of course, "The President was shot." And I couldn't even remember where the President was, to tell you the truth, at that time. But I never talked to this person.

Q. Could you complete through page 26, line 16, please?
A. I get confused. It stops and goes over to another...

Q. 24, 25, 26.

A. It doesn't follow, sir. It doesn't follow.

Q. 23.

A. I see.

Q. 24.

A. Well, this doesn't follow this. It makes no sense. It's a nonsense. I don't mean it frivolously.

Q. At this point it says--there is an objection, calls for speculation, then there's some colloquy, and it's back to--

A. What? All I see is the word "speculation"--oh, somebody objects--

Q. "Objection, calls for speculation."

A. Oh, okay.

Q. The passage between the two pages.

A. Okay. I didn't understand that. This is fantasy. Pure fantasy. I don't know where this guy was or where he's coming from. He was concerned about the autopsy, he called me and talked to me about it? He never talked to me. I mean, I'll read it, but I don't know what good it's going to do you.
Never happened. That's all I can tell you. If I did, I mean, I developed amnesia of some kind or other. But a long conversation like this at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, absolutely, categorically did not occur.

Q. Just so the record is clear here, you are saying that--would it be fair to say that you're saying that Dr. Livingston never called you on the 22nd--

A. To my recollection, he never called me. The only person, outside of the people right there on the scene, I spoke to was Bruce Smith. Bruce Smith, a very dear friend, close friend of mine, was the Deputy Director-Navy at the AFIP at that time. He called and offered the services of the AFIP, anybody I needed, which was very logical. I had been stationed at the AFIP. You know, it was home to me. It was a very cordial conversation. "Bruce," I said, "Thanks a lot. Let me see what the problem is, and if I need any help, I'll call you back." When I saw what the problem was, I needed a ballistics person. And I called Bruce back. I said, "Who do you have that's in ballistics?" He said, well, Colonel Finck just got back from Panama, where he'd been unscrambling some who-shot-whom between the Americans and the Panamanians, one of the typical--which was familiar to me because I served for a couple years in Panama during a revolution. So I was very familiar with that. I said, "Well, that sounds great."
I welcomed the assistance of Dr. Finck. That is absolutely the only person that I spoke to outside of that building that day. Now, whether he talked to somebody else, I can't--it could be. He could have talked to J or he could have talked to any number of people in our department. We had a big department, you know, but I did not speak with him.


...

[color]Q. When is the first time you had a conversation with anyone outside of people in the autopsy room regarding the nature of the President's wounds?

A. The next morning when I called Malcolm Perry.

Q. Approximately--

A. I'm pretty sure that's who I spoke to. I know it is.

Q. Approximately what time did you speak to Dr. Perry?

A. I think 8 or 9 o'clock on Saturday morning.

Q. Were you aware of any telephone calls being made from the autopsy room during the time of the autopsy?

A. Well, you see, that's possible. Certainly not by me, but we had a large defect in the side of--in the right side of the President's skull, and there was dialogue back and forth between somebody- -I don't know whether the FBI or Secret Service-- that fragments of bone had been picked up on the street. And there was conversation back and forth between--I guess they were Secret Service people. I had no idea, to tell you the truth. And they were going to be sent to us, which was fine because we needed to close the defect if we could. It didn't turn out to be enough to totally close the defect. We did other things to accomplish that. But your specific question, if these phone conversations were going on, I was not directing them, I was not involved in them, and really it wasn't my problem.

Q. Was there a telephone in the autopsy room?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall whether anyone was stationed at the telephone during the course--

A. No, no. If there was, I didn't have anything to do with it.

Q. Did you make any attempts to call anyone in Dallas prior to the completion of the autopsy?

A. No.

Q. Were you aware of any other kinds of communications, in addition to telephone calls, between Bethesda Hospital and Dallas regarding wounds of the body?

A. No.

Q. In addition to the call that you had with Dr. Perry, did you speak with any other person who had been in Dallas on the day of the assassination regarding the nature of the President's wounds?

A. Contemporaneously at that time?

Q. Thank you. Let me try the question again. Prior to the time that you had completed the autopsy protocol, did you speak with any other doctor--

A. No.

Q. --or law enforcement official about the nature of the wounds on President Kennedy's body?

A. I did not.

Q. Dr. Perry is the only one, then, prior to the completion--

A. Right.

Q. --of the autopsy protocol?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you see any written materials prior to the time that you completed the autopsy protocol that discussed or described events in Dallas?

A. No.

Q. In the autopsy protocol, there is reference to information that happened in Dallas. Do you recall how you came to have that information?

A. I'd have to know--

Q. I'll show you the autopsy protocol.

A. Yes. I can't recall.

Q. Just start with the first two paragraphs of the autopsy protocol.

MR. GUNN: Dr. Humes is now examining Exhibit 3.

[Pause.]

THE WITNESS: Yes, this makes reference to the local newspapers, which is the source, plus I may have had the television on sometime on Saturday. I'm not sure. I was busy doing a lot of things. I can't tell you for sure. I had no personal knowledge. I had to get it secondhand, whatever it was. It was not my job. It was not my responsibility in the first place.[/color]

...

Q. Did you consider the autopsy to be a medical-legal autopsy?

A. Yes. Oh, sure.

Q. And there was a gunshot wound to the neck, wasn't there?

A. Well, you'd better clarify that. There was a big gaping tracheotomy wound in the anterior neck. I learned later that there had been a gunshot wound in that location, but I didn't know it. That was 99 percent of my problem. There was a bullet wound in the back above the scapula, like I mentioned earlier, and there was a wound of entrance in the back of the skull and a wound of exit in the skull. Those were the wounds.


...

A. Well, we looked at this wound in the upper part of his neck, and we made a customary Y-shaped incision to do the rest of the autopsy and removed the breast plate, which was standard operating procedure, and examined the inside of the thorax. And that's when we saw the contusion of the dome of the upper lobe of the right lung, and we wondered, Where's the bullet? You know. Should have called Dallas right then and there. It would have saved me a lot of worry and grief for several hours, because X-rays hadn't found it for us. Like it could have been in his thigh or it could have been in his buttock. It could have been any damn place. We don't know where it went. It was obvious after we talked to the doctors the next morning where it went. It went out. That's why we couldn't find it. And we weren't going to spend the rest of the night there, you know.
Meantime, George Burkley is telling me, you know, the family wants to get out of here sometime tonight. Then we proceeded with the dissection of the lungs, heart, and abdominal contents and so forth.


...

Q. During the time that you were performing the autopsy, did you ever identify what you took to be the margin of a wound in the area of the trach incision?

A. No.


...

Q. During the course of the deposition, we have talked three photographs that you had had some understanding existed and that you did not see here today. I'd like to ask you a question about another possible photograph or X-ray to see if you have any recollection of it. Do you recall any photograph or X-ray that was taken with a probe inserted into the posterior thorax?

A. No, absolutely not. I do not have a recollection of such.



Quote:
Embalming timing
Here is how the autopsy is described in contemporaneous documentation: “UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF MR. HAGAN, THE EMBALMING, COSMETICS, RESTORATION (EXTENSIVE CRANIAL DAMAGE), DRESSING AND CASKETING WAS COMPLETED BY 4 A.M. ON SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1963.”

That is a lot of work to do, and 3 hours is a reasonable estimate. If the embalming, cosmetics, restoration, dressing, and casketing took 3 hours total, this alone would put the end of the autopsy before 1AM. As we will see later, there is a testimony suggesting that it did take 3 hours.
Sibert and O'Neill had to have left by then. It takes at least 45 minutes to drive to the FBI lab, and FBI lab firearm expert Robert Fraier wrote in this report that the two large fragments recovered from the autopsy had been personally delivered by Sibert and O'Neill at 1:45 AM: https://www.history-matters.com/essa...ks/Figure1.jpg

And at 2:00 AM a teletype was sent describing the autopsy findings as summarized by Sibert and O'Neill: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=680

According to Google Maps, it takes at least 45 minutes at night to drive from the former Bethesda Naval Hospital to the FBI crime lab. Now there's the unknown element of how much time would be spent walking, waiting, etc.


[/quote]Hagan’s direct statement
Hagan, of Gawler’s funeral home, stated that “the embalming began shortly after midnight, and concluded about 3 A. M.” This puts the end of the autopsy at shortly after midnight at the latest.

(Hagan had a hard time remembering what went on. He recalled arriving with the casket, but also recalled arriving “no later than 12:30AM.” But the casket arrived at 2AM. His testimony cannot all be correct, as he himself later realized. Nevertheless, he directly testified to the embalming starting shortly after midnight.)


Agent Sibert leaves
FBI Agent James Sibert said he left before midnight. He also said he left at the end of the autopsy. This is how he described the scene as he was leaving the autopsy:



If we take Sibert at his word, the doctors were not even attending to the body at the time he left. He testified that the doctors were gathering records, completing the final cataloguing, and filling out paperwork after the autopsy. You have tried very hard to dismiss his testimony as irrelevant by saying he just assumed the autopsy was over, but it is much stronger than that. He witnessed them stop working on the body and start working on the concluding paperwork.

This is consistent with the doctors learning about the throat wound after the autopsy.[/quote]

Yes, Sibert did witness the autopsy pathologists leave the room (by the way, what was up with Humes saying "I never left the room" to the HSCA?), perhaps to make a phone call?

I want to bring your attention to what Francis X. O'Neill told the HSCA and ARRB. We know from the 1:45 AM Robert Frazier document and the 2:00 AM teletype that they couldn't have left the autopsy much later than midnight, because the trip is like an hour away.

So O'Neill could not be telling the truth when he told the HSCA "I did not discuss any autopsy procedures with the embalmers. I last saw the body just prior to the dressing, after the morticians were through.":https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc....eId=8&tab=page

Or when he told the ARRB that he saw the Gawler's funeral team reconstruct the body until it was in "good shape", embalming, dressing and casketing, speaking as if he had a clear recollection of this event: https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/j...ll_9-12-97.pdf

Since it took at least 3:30 AM to get everything ready, with personnel reminding them to hurry up, it must have taken longer than 1:00 AM to get to this stage of the restoration work by Gawler's funeral team.


Quote:
Kellerman estimates the times
During Kellerman’s WC testimony, he often that he used estimates of duration, rather than specific memory of the time, to determine when events occurred. Still, he supports an early autopsy end time (and a 2AM end time). At one point he states:



When Specter asked, “about what time, then, did they [the embalming team] complete their work?” Kellerman replied, “They were all through at 3:30.”

If we accept his most confident statement—that the autopsy began by 7:30—and also accept that the autopsy was 4.5 to 5 hours, then the autopsy ended between midnight and 12:30 AM. If we accept his two hour estimate for embalming and his statement that they were through by 3:30AM, then they began at 1:30AM. The autopsy must have ended earlier than that.

This is consistent with the doctors learning about the throat wound after the autopsy.
I want to point out the unexplained "2:00 - 2:45 AM" information.

1. 11/30/1963 statement of Secret Service agent Clinton J. Hill
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0371a.htm

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc....d=758&tab=page

The President's body was taken to the morgue at the hospital, accompanied by ASAIC Kellerman, SA Greer, and Admiral Burkley, for an autopsy. SA Landis and I secured the 17th Floor of the hospital and remained there with Mrs. Kennedy. We established a communications system with the White House and handled all telephone calls both incoming and outgoing, screening each and every call. Any person attempting to reach the 17th Floor was also screened.

At approximately 2:45 a.m., November 23, I was requested by ASAIC Kellerman to come to the morgue to once again view the body. When I arrived the autopsy had been completed and ASAIC Kellerman, SA Greer, General McHugh and I viewed the wounds. I observed a wound about six inches down from the neckline on the back just to the right of the spinal column. I observed another wound on the right rear portion of the skull. Attendants of the Joseph Gawler Mortuary were at this time preparing the body for placement in the casket. A new casket had been obtained from Gawler Mortuary in which the body was to be placed.

I went back to the 17th Floor of the hospital at approximately 3:10 a.m. The President's body was taken from the U.S. Naval Hospital, Bethesda, Maryland, at 3:56 a.m., accompanied by Mrs. Kennedy and Attorney General Kennedy, in the rear of a U.S. Navy ambulance driven by SA Greer. ASAIC Kellerman rode in the right front seat. I rode in the right front seat of a White House limousine immediately behind the ambulance. The motorcade was accompanied by motorcycle police and arrived at the White House at 4:24 a.m. The casket was taken immediately to the East Room and placed in the center of the room on a catephalt.


2. 11/29/1963 Statement of Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman

https://www.history-matters.com/arch...ol18_0371a.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/sa-kelle.htm

Mrs. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and General McHugh sat in the rear of the ambulance- SAs Greer, Landis and myself with Dr. Burkley rode in the front to Bethesda, with a police escort. The body was immediately taken to the morgue and the family was assigned rooms in the Towers of the Center. Hill and Landis remained with Mrs. Kennedy in her quarters and William Greer and I remained in the morgue and viewed the autopsy examinations which were performed by Vice Admiral Gallway, Commanding Officer, NNMC, Chief Pathologist Cdr. James Humes, Lt. Col. Pierre A. Finck who is Chief, Military Environmental Pathology Division and Chief of Wound Ballistics, Pathology Branch, and J. Thornton Boswell, Cdr. Medical Corps, USN, together with the Naval Medical Staff. SA O'Leary was also in the morgue briefly. Agents O'Neill and Siebert were present.

During the night Joseph Cawlers Sons, Inc., funeral directors, were notified by Robert Kennedy and Sargent Shriver and a new coffin was obtained. After the completion of the autopsy and before the embalming I summoned SA Hill down to the morgue to view the body and to witness the damage of the gunshot wounds. The embalming was performed after the autopsy by the staff of Joseph Gawlers.

Prior to our departure from the Naval Hospital I received all film, x-rays, that were used during this autopsy, and upon arrival at the White House I turned them over to SAIC Bouck.


3. The Day Kennedy Was Shot by Jim Bishop 1968 (posted above)

4. The 2 AM casket delivery notation on the Gawler's "First Call Sheet"

5. Roy Kellerman's Warren Commission testimony (you posted that)


Quote:
Manchester writes a book
This description comes from Manchester’s The Death of a President.

The autopsy team had finished its work, a grueling, three-hour task, interrupted by the arrival of a fragment of skull which had been retrieved on Elm Street and flown east by federal agents.
[…]
The cosmetician then went to work. In Hagan’s words, “He was really under the gun. There were about thirty-five people, led by General Wehle, breathing down our necks. We were worrying about skull leakage, which could be disastrous. We did not know whether the body would be viewed or not.” The application of cosmetics required nearly three hours. It was quite unnecessary, but that was not the undertakers’ fault.




If the autopsy took about the hours, that would put its end at about 10:30PM. If the embalming took almost 3 hours, that would mean it started by 1 AM, probably earlier. That would mean the autopsy had to have ended earlier.

This is consistent with the doctors learning about the throat wound after the autopsy.
Did you forget the line "Commander James J. Humes, Bethesda’s chief of pathology, telephoned Perry in Dallas shortly after midnight, and clinical photographs were taken to satisfy all the Texas doctors who had been in Trauma Room No. 1."?

BTW you should also probably read these:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=956

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=962
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2018, 11:29 AM   #554
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I am not so sure if the Mahogany casket arrived at the hospital at 2 AM.

Remember, Kennedy aide David F. Powers wrote a contemporaneous journal (within November 22 and 23) which said "Around midnight Ken, Larry, and I picked out a coffin for our President". This was cited in William Manchester's book The Death of a President (relevant section here)

Comparing the record, I have found no satisfying way to reconcile the notation "2 A.M." on the Gawler's Funeral Home "First Call Sheet" which records events of November 22-23,1963 with the 11 PM - 12 AM hospital arrival time indicated by Joseph E. Hagan. Above the "CASKET DELIVERY DETAILS" on the same document, it says "Arrangements:-When 11 p.m.". How does the Kennedy aide's casket selection "around midnight" fit into this? Although Tomas Evan Robinson and John Van Hoesen made statements to the HSCA, Lifton, ARRB, etc. that they arrived at the autopsy very early when the examination of the body had started, I tend to go with Joe Hagan who indicated that the Gawler's funeral team arrived around 11:00 PM - 12:00 AM. Joe Hagan, Tom Robinson, and John Van Hoesen have all made statements that they had to wait at least around half an hour until autopsy procedures were completed. Compare that to the statements of FBI agent James Sibert who always swore that he and Franis X. O'Neill departed Bethesda when the Gawler's funeral team arrived. Francis X. O'Neill himself told some very tall tales about staying at Bethesda long enough to witness the reconstruction, embalming, and dressing of Kennedy's body. We'll get to that later.

From Harrison Livingstone's 1993 book Killing The Truth: Deceit and Deception in the JFK Case, here are the relevant parts of his interview with Joseph E. Hagan:

(page 728)[...]

Appendix J

[...]
Quote:
PREPARING THE BODY FOR BURIAL

Joe Hagen: "I had some guy screaming at us the whole time... some air force major... There was a lot of interference with the autopsy, I understand." (Interview of Hagen by Harrison Livingstone and Kathlee Fitzgerald)

The professionals from Gawlers Funeral Home arrived while "they were proceeding with the most mortem... the head, I think the thoracic cavities and all, had been opened... our hearse took the (mahogany) casket out to the Naval Hospital late that evening... we dressed him and rolled the casket right in and put him in it." (Interview of Joe Hagen by Harrison Livingstone and Kathlee Fitzgerald, 8/15/91)


[...]

(page 740-741)[...]

Appendix J

[...]

THE "SHIPPING CASKET" STORY

A document discovered by Patrick Boyles surfaced, which originated at Gawlers Funeral Home in Washington, and was passed around at the 1992 Dallas A.S.K. Conference. The document had a handwritten notation on it which read "Body removed from metal shipping casket at USNH at Bethesda."

Joe Hagan, the president of Gawlers, wrote this himself. (Interview with Kathlee Fitzgerald and the author, March 31, 1993.) Hagan explained that the confusion is over semantics. He told me that the use of the term "casket" cannot be confused with what bodies are normally shipped in, such as a Zigler case, an air tray, a combination casket, or a "shipping container" which he said is what the military normally ships a body in. He stated that it would always be called a "container" in that case, and is not considered a casket, nor would it be called a casket.

Hagan went on to say that "The only reason we use that phrase was to identify the casket as a casket and as metal." He said that noone at Gawlers saw the body come out of the casket. nor was anyone from the funeral home there when the body arrived, but came much later, so they had no knowledge of it. He wrote the notation about a shipping casket because this is what he was told the body came in from Dallas. He said that noone would have called it a casket if it had been a shipping container or anything else, and that a casket is only called a casket if it is for viewing. (See Medical Encyclopedia Appendix for witnesses and events regarding the shipping casket.)
Quote:

And here is the ARRB's report of 5/17/1995 and 6/11/1996 interviews with Joe Hagan: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=713

And Tom Robinson: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=711


And John Van Hoesen: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=712

Before the HSCA, the only interviews the Gawler's men ever did were with William Manchester for his 1967 book The Death of a President and Jim Bishop's 1968 book The Day Kennedy Was Shot.

Relevant section from The Day Kennedy Was Shot here http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3041



Correct.



Dr. Humes certainly was not talking about a phone call at 2 AM when he told his version of the Perry phone call story (by the way, Perry always described two separate phone calls with Humes, while Humes always reported one).

Dr. Humes gave an approximate 10:30 - 11:00 AM 11/23/1963 time for the Perry phone call, and indicated that he and Boswell indicated that they personally met together at the time of this phone call.

See the relevant section here:

Dr. BADEN. We're talking about also photographs Nos. 13 and 14. Did--in further discussing the exit perforation through the tracheotomy, did you have occasion to explore in the neck area beyond what is in the protocol, beyond what the description was? As to what was injured?

Dr. HUMES. Well, the trachea, I think we described the irregular or jagged wound of the trachea, and then we described a contusion in the apex of the lung and the inferior surface of the dome of the right pleural cavity, and that's one photograph that we were distressed not to find when we first went through and catalogued these photographs, because I distinctly recall going to great lengths to try and get the interior upper portion of the right thorax illuminated-you know the technical difficulties with that, getting the camera positioned and so forth, and what happened to that film, I don't know. There were a couple films that apparently had been exposed to light or whatever and then developed, but we never saw that photograph.

Dr. BADEN. From the time you first examined them, that particular photograph was never seen?

Dr. HUMES. Never available to us, but we thought it coincided very neatly with the path that ultimately we felt that that missile took.

Dr. BADEN. Continuing with the path. There is present in the X-rays Solne Opaque material to the right of the lower cervical spine which has been interpreted as being tiny bullet or bone fragments. Would the track, as you recall, be consistent with the missile striking a transverse process?

Dr. HUMES. Well, I must confess that we didn't make that interpretation at the time. I'm familiar with the writings of Dr. John Lattimer and of some reprints of his articles, and I'd have to go back and restudy it the way he has done. But as you can see from the point of entrance, it wasn't that far lateral. It could conceivably have nicked a--the edge of a transverse process.


...

Dr. HUMES. Laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound which I describe for your identification. You may wish to go back and look and add some corrections and whatever to this note. There's another fact of this. Having completed the examination, others might he interested in this--

Dr. BADEN. Yes. We're in session, Joe.

Dr. HUMES. Having completed the examination and remaining to assist the morticians in the preparation of the body, we did not leave the autopsy room until 5:30 or 6 in the morning. It was clearly obvious that a committee could not write the report. I had another commitment for that morning, a little later, a religious commitment with one of my children. And so I went home and took care of that, slept far several hours until about 6 in the evening of the day after, and then sat down and wrote the report that's sitting before you now myself, my own version of it. without any input other than the discussions that we thought that we had had, Dr. Boswell, Dr. Finck and myself. I then returned that morning and looked at what I had written--now wait, I'm a day ahead of myself---Saturday morning we discussed--

Dr. BOSWELL. Saturday morning we got together and we called Dallas.

Dr. HUMES. We called Dallas. See, we were at a loss because we hadn't appreciated the exit wound in the neck, we had been-- I have to go back a little bit. I think for your edification. There were four times as many people in the room most of the time as there are in this room at this moment, including the physician to the President, the Surgeon General of the Navy, the Commanding Officer of the Naval Medical Center, the Commanding Officer of the Naval Medical School, the Army, Navy, and Air Force aides to the President of the United States at one time or another, the Secret Service, the FBI and countless nondescript people who were unknown to me. Mistake No. 1. So, there was considerable confusion. So we went home. I took care of this obligation that I had. To refresh my mind, we met together around noon on Saturday, 11 in the morning, perhaps 10:30, something like that and---

Dr. BADEN. Now this is the day after?

Dr. HUMES. The day after, within 6 or 8 hours of having completed the examination, assisting Waller's and so forth for the preparation of the President's remains. We got together and discussed our problem. We said we've got to talk to the people in Dallas We should have talked to them the night before, but there was no way we could get out of the room. You'd have to understand that situation, that hysterical situation that existed. How we kept our wits about us as well as we did is amazing to me. I don't know how we managed as poorly or as well as we did under the circumstances. So I called Dr. Perry. Took me a little while to reach him. We had a very nice conversation on the phone in which he described a missile wound, what he interpreted as a missile wound, in the midline of the neck through which he had created a very quick emergency, as you can see from the photographs, tracheotomy incision effect destroying its value to us and obscuring it very gorgeously for us. Well, of course, the minute he said that to me, lights went on, and we said ah, we have some place for our missile to have gone. And then, of course, I asked him, much to my amazement, had he or any other physician in attendance upon the President, examined the back of the patient, his neck, or his shoulder. They said no, the patient had never been moved from his back while they were administering to him. So, the confusion that existed from some of his comments and the comments of other standby people in the emergency room in Dallas had been in the news media and elsewhere, so that added to the confusion. So, following that, and that discussion, and we having a meeting of minds as to generally what was necessary to be accomplished, and being informed by the various people in anthority that our gross report should be delivered to the White House physician no later than Sunday evening, the next day, 24 hours later, or not quite 24 hours later. Not having slept for about 48 hours, I went home and rested from noon until 8 or 10 that evening, Saturday evening, and then I sat down in front of other notes on which I had made minor comments, handwritten notes. I wrote the report which is present here. Now we also have here--and since it's in the record I want to comment about it some comments that I destroyed, some notes related to this, by burning in the fireplace of my home, and that is true. However, nothing that was destroyed is not present in this write-up. Now, why did I do that? It's interesting, and I've not spoken of this in public. Not too long here of this, I had had the experience of serving as an escort officer for some foreign physicians from foreign navies, who were being entertained and given a course of instruction in the United States. We had 20 or 30 of these chaps, and they used to come through every year or two, and I often was escort officer for them. They spent 5 weeks in Washington or 5 weeks in the field, then we went various places. We went to submarine bases and Marine Corps installations and naval training centers to teach them how physicians function in the American Navy. One of the places to which I happened to take them--and we tried to teach them a little Americana--I took them to Greenfield Village, which, as many of you know, Henry Ford set up adjacent to his former home in suburban Detroit, Dearborn. And in that location is a courthouse in which President Lincoln used to hold forth when he was riding the circuit, and these men were very impressed with that, and they knew who President Lincoln was and were impressed with his courthouse and many other things in Greenfield Village. But what I was amazed to find there, because I personally did not know it was there until I made that visit, was the chair in which President Lincoln sat when he was assassinated. Somehow or other they got that chair out of Ford's Theatre, and Henry Ford got it into Greenfield Village, and it's sitting in this courthouse. Now the back of that chair is stained with a dark substance, and there's much discussion to this day as to whether that stain represents the blood of the deceased President or whether it is Macassar. I don't know if you all remember what Macassar is. When people our age were young and you'd visit yoar grandmother, on the back of the sofa there were lovely lace doilies in the homes of many people. And if you recall what I'm speaking of--they were on the sofas and reclining chairs--and those lace doilies bear the name antimacassar. You could go to a store in this country and buy an anti macassar. They don't exist any more. And Macassar was a hair dressing that gentlemen wore in those days to keep their hair in place. And these officers were appalled that the American people would wish to have an object stained with the blood of the President on public display. And I was--it kind of bothered me a little bit-it still does, to this day. And here I was, now in the possession of a number of pieces of paper, some of which unavoidably, and in the confusion which I described to you earlier, were stained in part with the blood of our deceased President. And I knew that I would give the record over to some person or persons in authority, and I felt that these pieces of paper were inappropriate to be turned over to anyone, and it was for that reason and for that reason only, that, having transcribed those notes onto the pieces of paper that are before you, I destroyed those pieces of paper. I think I'd do the same thing tomorrow. I had a similar problem, because I felt they would fail into the hands of some sensation seeker.


And an 8:00 - 9:00 AM estimate for his 2/13/1996 ARRB interview:

Q. During the course of the autopsy--

A. Let me interrupt there. May I?

Q. Sure.

A. My problem is, very simply stated, we had an entrance wound high in the posterior back above the scapula. We didn't know where the exit wound was at that point. I'd be the first one to admit it. We knew in general in the past that we should have been more prescient than we were, I must confess, because when we removed the breast plate and examined the thoracic cavity, we saw a contusion on the upper lobe of the lung. There was no defect in the pleura anyplace. So it's obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung.
Of course, the more I thought about it, the more I realized it had to go out from the neck.
It was the only place it could go, after it was not found anywhere in the X-rays. So early the next morning, I called Parkland Hospital and talked with Malcolm Perry, I guess it was. And he said, Oh, yeah, there was a wound right in the middle of the neck by the tie, and we used that for the tracheotomy. Well, they obliterated, literally obliterated--when we went back to the photographs, we thought we might have seen some indication of the edge of that wound in the gaping skin where the--but it wouldn't make a great deal of sense to go slashing open the neck. What would we learn? Nothing, you know. So I didn't--I don't know if anybody said don't do this or don't do that. I wouldn't have done it no matter what anybody said. That was not important. I mean, that's--

Q. Do you know what the standard autopsy protocol is for gunshot wounds and autopsy of the neck?

A. Well, no. I haven't seen that in--what you say, standard, I mean, many times if you have a track of a missile, it's helpful to take a long probe and put it in the position. It can tell you a lot of things. If you know where the point of entrance and the point of exit are, it's duck soup. But for me to start probing around in this man's neck, all I would make was false passages. There wouldn't be any track that I could put a probe through or anything of that nature. It just doesn't work that way.

Q. Was any probe used at all to track the path--

A. I don't recall that there was. There might have been some abortive efforts superficially in the back of the neck, but no.
And if there's a standard protocol, I don't know where you'd find it, to tell you the truth.


...

Q. Dr. Humes, I'd like to go through the events as they occurred, as best you can recollect them, on November 26th, starting from--

A. 26th?

Q. Excuse me. November 22nd, starting in the afternoon. The first question I'd have for you would be whether you heard from anyone prior to the time the autopsy began about the nature of the wounds that President Kennedy had suffered.

A. Not at all.

Q. Are you familiar with the name of Robert Livingston, Dr. Robert Livingston?

A. Is this him? No, that's Harry Livingstone. No, I'm not.

Q. I'd like to show you a transcript of some testimony that he offered in the case of Crenshaw v. Sutherland?

A. May I ask who is Dr. Livingston?

Q. Yes.

A. Not the guy in the jungle.

Q. According to "Who's Who in America," Robert Livingston is a neuroscientist who received his undergraduate and medical degrees from Stanford University, and he was a resident at Stanford Hospital in San Francisco. In 1963, he was the chief of the Neurobiology Lab at the National Institute of Mental Health.

A. Okay.

Q. Does that help refresh your recollection of who Dr. Livingston is?

A. I don't know him from Adam, personally. I never heard of him before this minute, but I don't doubt his qualifications or whatever.

Q. I'd like you to take a moment, if you would, and read the deposition from page 23, line 1, to page 26, line 16.

You should also feel free to read any other part of the deposition that you'd like.

A. Now, where?

Q. Page 23, line 1. This is in microscript.

A. Page 22--okay. I see it now. Okay.
[Pause.]
BY MR. GUNN:
Q. For the record, the exhibit number is No. 24.

A. Well, this is ridiculous. I was at home at this time. He never talked to me, period. Absolutely never did talk to me. I don't need to read any further, to tell you the truth. I mean, I don't know what he's talking about. I was at home helping my wife prepare for a social event that night, and our first knowledge of the death of the President was when our children came home from school on the school bus, came in running, yelling, all screaming, of course, "The President was shot." And I couldn't even remember where the President was, to tell you the truth, at that time. But I never talked to this person.

Q. Could you complete through page 26, line 16, please?
A. I get confused. It stops and goes over to another...

Q. 24, 25, 26.

A. It doesn't follow, sir. It doesn't follow.

Q. 23.

A. I see.

Q. 24.

A. Well, this doesn't follow this. It makes no sense. It's a nonsense. I don't mean it frivolously.

Q. At this point it says--there is an objection, calls for speculation, then there's some colloquy, and it's back to--

A. What? All I see is the word "speculation"--oh, somebody objects--

Q. "Objection, calls for speculation."

A. Oh, okay.

Q. The passage between the two pages.

A. Okay. I didn't understand that. This is fantasy. Pure fantasy. I don't know where this guy was or where he's coming from. He was concerned about the autopsy, he called me and talked to me about it? He never talked to me. I mean, I'll read it, but I don't know what good it's going to do you.
Never happened. That's all I can tell you. If I did, I mean, I developed amnesia of some kind or other. But a long conversation like this at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, absolutely, categorically did not occur.

Q. Just so the record is clear here, you are saying that--would it be fair to say that you're saying that Dr. Livingston never called you on the 22nd--

A. To my recollection, he never called me. The only person, outside of the people right there on the scene, I spoke to was Bruce Smith. Bruce Smith, a very dear friend, close friend of mine, was the Deputy Director-Navy at the AFIP at that time. He called and offered the services of the AFIP, anybody I needed, which was very logical. I had been stationed at the AFIP. You know, it was home to me. It was a very cordial conversation. "Bruce," I said, "Thanks a lot. Let me see what the problem is, and if I need any help, I'll call you back." When I saw what the problem was, I needed a ballistics person. And I called Bruce back. I said, "Who do you have that's in ballistics?" He said, well, Colonel Finck just got back from Panama, where he'd been unscrambling some who-shot-whom between the Americans and the Panamanians, one of the typical--which was familiar to me because I served for a couple years in Panama during a revolution. So I was very familiar with that. I said, "Well, that sounds great."
I welcomed the assistance of Dr. Finck. That is absolutely the only person that I spoke to outside of that building that day. Now, whether he talked to somebody else, I can't--it could be. He could have talked to J or he could have talked to any number of people in our department. We had a big department, you know, but I did not speak with him.


...

[color]Q. When is the first time you had a conversation with anyone outside of people in the autopsy room regarding the nature of the President's wounds?

A. The next morning when I called Malcolm Perry.

Q. Approximately--

A. I'm pretty sure that's who I spoke to. I know it is.

Q. Approximately what time did you speak to Dr. Perry?

A. I think 8 or 9 o'clock on Saturday morning.

Q. Were you aware of any telephone calls being made from the autopsy room during the time of the autopsy?

A. Well, you see, that's possible. Certainly not by me, but we had a large defect in the side of--in the right side of the President's skull, and there was dialogue back and forth between somebody- -I don't know whether the FBI or Secret Service-- that fragments of bone had been picked up on the street. And there was conversation back and forth between--I guess they were Secret Service people. I had no idea, to tell you the truth. And they were going to be sent to us, which was fine because we needed to close the defect if we could. It didn't turn out to be enough to totally close the defect. We did other things to accomplish that. But your specific question, if these phone conversations were going on, I was not directing them, I was not involved in them, and really it wasn't my problem.

Q. Was there a telephone in the autopsy room?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall whether anyone was stationed at the telephone during the course--

A. No, no. If there was, I didn't have anything to do with it.

Q. Did you make any attempts to call anyone in Dallas prior to the completion of the autopsy?

A. No.

Q. Were you aware of any other kinds of communications, in addition to telephone calls, between Bethesda Hospital and Dallas regarding wounds of the body?

A. No.

Q. In addition to the call that you had with Dr. Perry, did you speak with any other person who had been in Dallas on the day of the assassination regarding the nature of the President's wounds?

A. Contemporaneously at that time?

Q. Thank you. Let me try the question again. Prior to the time that you had completed the autopsy protocol, did you speak with any other doctor--

A. No.

Q. --or law enforcement official about the nature of the wounds on President Kennedy's body?

A. I did not.

Q. Dr. Perry is the only one, then, prior to the completion--

A. Right.

Q. --of the autopsy protocol?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you see any written materials prior to the time that you completed the autopsy protocol that discussed or described events in Dallas?

A. No.

Q. In the autopsy protocol, there is reference to information that happened in Dallas. Do you recall how you came to have that information?

A. I'd have to know--

Q. I'll show you the autopsy protocol.

A. Yes. I can't recall.

Q. Just start with the first two paragraphs of the autopsy protocol.

MR. GUNN: Dr. Humes is now examining Exhibit 3.

[Pause.]

THE WITNESS: Yes, this makes reference to the local newspapers, which is the source, plus I may have had the television on sometime on Saturday. I'm not sure. I was busy doing a lot of things. I can't tell you for sure. I had no personal knowledge. I had to get it secondhand, whatever it was. It was not my job. It was not my responsibility in the first place.[/color]

...

Q. Did you consider the autopsy to be a medical-legal autopsy?

A. Yes. Oh, sure.

Q. And there was a gunshot wound to the neck, wasn't there?

A. Well, you'd better clarify that. There was a big gaping tracheotomy wound in the anterior neck. I learned later that there had been a gunshot wound in that location, but I didn't know it. That was 99 percent of my problem. There was a bullet wound in the back above the scapula, like I mentioned earlier, and there was a wound of entrance in the back of the skull and a wound of exit in the skull. Those were the wounds.


...

A. Well, we looked at this wound in the upper part of his neck, and we made a customary Y-shaped incision to do the rest of the autopsy and removed the breast plate, which was standard operating procedure, and examined the inside of the thorax. And that's when we saw the contusion of the dome of the upper lobe of the right lung, and we wondered, Where's the bullet? You know. Should have called Dallas right then and there. It would have saved me a lot of worry and grief for several hours, because X-rays hadn't found it for us. Like it could have been in his thigh or it could have been in his buttock. It could have been any damn place. We don't know where it went. It was obvious after we talked to the doctors the next morning where it went. It went out. That's why we couldn't find it. And we weren't going to spend the rest of the night there, you know.
Meantime, George Burkley is telling me, you know, the family wants to get out of here sometime tonight. Then we proceeded with the dissection of the lungs, heart, and abdominal contents and so forth.


...

Q. During the time that you were performing the autopsy, did you ever identify what you took to be the margin of a wound in the area of the trach incision?

A. No.


...

Q. During the course of the deposition, we have talked three photographs that you had had some understanding existed and that you did not see here today. I'd like to ask you a question about another possible photograph or X-ray to see if you have any recollection of it. Do you recall any photograph or X-ray that was taken with a probe inserted into the posterior thorax?

A. No, absolutely not. I do not have a recollection of such.





Sibert and O'Neill had to have left by then. It takes at least 45 minutes to drive to the FBI lab, and FBI lab firearm expert Robert Fraier wrote in this report that the two large fragments recovered from the autopsy had been personally delivered by Sibert and O'Neill at 1:45 AM: https://www.history-matters.com/essa...ks/Figure1.jpg

And at 2:00 AM a teletype was sent describing the autopsy findings as summarized by Sibert and O'Neill: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=680

According to Google Maps, it takes at least 45 minutes at night to drive from the former Bethesda Naval Hospital to the FBI crime lab. Now there's the unknown element of how much time would be spent walking, waiting, etc.

Hagan’s direct statement
Hagan, of Gawler’s funeral home, stated that “the embalming began shortly after midnight, and concluded about 3 A. M.” This puts the end of the autopsy at shortly after midnight at the latest.

(Hagan had a hard time remembering what went on. He recalled arriving with the casket, but also recalled arriving “no later than 12:30AM.” But the casket arrived at 2AM. His testimony cannot all be correct, as he himself later realized. Nevertheless, he directly testified to the embalming starting shortly after midnight.)


Agent Sibert leaves
FBI Agent James Sibert said he left before midnight. He also said he left at the end of the autopsy. This is how he described the scene as he was leaving the autopsy:



If we take Sibert at his word, the doctors were not even attending to the body at the time he left. He testified that the doctors were gathering records, completing the final cataloguing, and filling out paperwork after the autopsy. You have tried very hard to dismiss his testimony as irrelevant by saying he just assumed the autopsy was over, but it is much stronger than that. He witnessed them stop working on the body and start working on the concluding paperwork.

This is consistent with the doctors learning about the throat wound after the autopsy.
Yes, Sibert did witness the autopsy pathologists leave the room (by the way, what was up with Humes saying "I never left the room" to the HSCA?), perhaps to make a phone call?

I want to bring your attention to what Francis X. O'Neill told the HSCA and ARRB. We know from the 1:45 AM Robert Frazier document and the 2:00 AM teletype that they couldn't have left the autopsy much later than midnight, because the trip is like an hour away.

So O'Neill could not be telling the truth when he told the HSCA "I did not discuss any autopsy procedures with the embalmers. I last saw the body just prior to the dressing, after the morticians were through.":https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc....eId=8&tab=page

Or when he told the ARRB that he saw the Gawler's funeral team reconstruct the body until it was in "good shape", embalming, dressing and casketing, speaking as if he had a clear recollection of this event: https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/j...ll_9-12-97.pdf

Since it took at least 3:30 AM to get everything ready, with personnel reminding them to hurry up, it must have taken longer than 1:00 AM to get to this stage of the restoration work by Gawler's funeral team.




I want to point out the unexplained "2:00 - 2:45 AM" information.

1. 11/30/1963 statement of Secret Service agent Clinton J. Hill
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0371a.htm

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc....d=758&tab=page

The President's body was taken to the morgue at the hospital, accompanied by ASAIC Kellerman, SA Greer, and Admiral Burkley, for an autopsy. SA Landis and I secured the 17th Floor of the hospital and remained there with Mrs. Kennedy. We established a communications system with the White House and handled all telephone calls both incoming and outgoing, screening each and every call. Any person attempting to reach the 17th Floor was also screened.

At approximately 2:45 a.m., November 23, I was requested by ASAIC Kellerman to come to the morgue to once again view the body. When I arrived the autopsy had been completed and ASAIC Kellerman, SA Greer, General McHugh and I viewed the wounds. I observed a wound about six inches down from the neckline on the back just to the right of the spinal column. I observed another wound on the right rear portion of the skull. Attendants of the Joseph Gawler Mortuary were at this time preparing the body for placement in the casket. A new casket had been obtained from Gawler Mortuary in which the body was to be placed.

I went back to the 17th Floor of the hospital at approximately 3:10 a.m. The President's body was taken from the U.S. Naval Hospital, Bethesda, Maryland, at 3:56 a.m., accompanied by Mrs. Kennedy and Attorney General Kennedy, in the rear of a U.S. Navy ambulance driven by SA Greer. ASAIC Kellerman rode in the right front seat. I rode in the right front seat of a White House limousine immediately behind the ambulance. The motorcade was accompanied by motorcycle police and arrived at the White House at 4:24 a.m. The casket was taken immediately to the East Room and placed in the center of the room on a catephalt.


2. 11/29/1963 Statement of Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman

https://www.history-matters.com/arch...ol18_0371a.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/sa-kelle.htm

Mrs. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and General McHugh sat in the rear of the ambulance- SAs Greer, Landis and myself with Dr. Burkley rode in the front to Bethesda, with a police escort. The body was immediately taken to the morgue and the family was assigned rooms in the Towers of the Center. Hill and Landis remained with Mrs. Kennedy in her quarters and William Greer and I remained in the morgue and viewed the autopsy examinations which were performed by Vice Admiral Gallway, Commanding Officer, NNMC, Chief Pathologist Cdr. James Humes, Lt. Col. Pierre A. Finck who is Chief, Military Environmental Pathology Division and Chief of Wound Ballistics, Pathology Branch, and J. Thornton Boswell, Cdr. Medical Corps, USN, together with the Naval Medical Staff. SA O'Leary was also in the morgue briefly. Agents O'Neill and Siebert were present.

During the night Joseph Cawlers Sons, Inc., funeral directors, were notified by Robert Kennedy and Sargent Shriver and a new coffin was obtained. After the completion of the autopsy and before the embalming I summoned SA Hill down to the morgue to view the body and to witness the damage of the gunshot wounds. The embalming was performed after the autopsy by the staff of Joseph Gawlers.

Prior to our departure from the Naval Hospital I received all film, x-rays, that were used during this autopsy, and upon arrival at the White House I turned them over to SAIC Bouck.


3. The Day Kennedy Was Shot by Jim Bishop 1968 (posted above)

4. The 2 AM casket delivery notation on the Gawler's "First Call Sheet"

5. Roy Kellerman's Warren Commission testimony (you posted that)




Did you forget the line "Commander James J. Humes, Bethesda’s chief of pathology, telephoned Perry in Dallas shortly after midnight, and clinical photographs were taken to satisfy all the Texas doctors who had been in Trauma Room No. 1."?

BTW you should also probably read these:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=956

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=962
And therefore..........? (Please complete this sentence)
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"

Last edited by Steve; 15th March 2018 at 11:34 AM.
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2018, 12:40 PM   #555
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,676
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I am not so sure if the Mahogany casket arrived at the hospital at 2 AM.

Remember, Kennedy aide David F. Powers wrote a contemporaneous journal (within November 22 and 23) which said "Around midnight Ken, Larry, and I picked out a coffin for our President". This was cited in William Manchester's book The Death of a President (relevant section here)

Comparing the record, I have found no satisfying way to reconcile the notation "2 A.M." on the Gawler's Funeral Home "First Call Sheet" which records events of November 22-23,1963 with the 11 PM - 12 AM hospital arrival time indicated by Joseph E. Hagan. Above the "CASKET DELIVERY DETAILS" on the same document, it says "Arrangements:-When 11 p.m.". How does the Kennedy aide's casket selection "around midnight" fit into this? Although Tomas Evan Robinson and John Van Hoesen made statements to the HSCA, Lifton, ARRB, etc. that they arrived at the autopsy very early when the examination of the body had started, I tend to go with Joe Hagan who indicated that the Gawler's funeral team arrived around 11:00 PM - 12:00 AM. Joe Hagan, Tom Robinson, and John Van Hoesen have all made statements that they had to wait at least around half an hour until autopsy procedures were completed. Compare that to the statements of FBI agent James Sibert who always swore that he and Franis X. O'Neill departed Bethesda when the Gawler's funeral team arrived. Francis X. O'Neill himself told some very tall tales about staying at Bethesda long enough to witness the reconstruction, embalming, and dressing of Kennedy's body. We'll get to that later.

From Harrison Livingstone's 1993 book Killing The Truth: Deceit and Deception in the JFK Case, here are the relevant parts of his interview with Joseph E. Hagan:

(page 728)[...]

Appendix J

[...]

PREPARING THE BODY FOR BURIAL

Joe Hagen: "I had some guy screaming at us the whole time... some air force major... There was a lot of interference with the autopsy, I understand." (Interview of Hagen by Harrison Livingstone and Kathlee Fitzgerald)

The professionals from Gawlers Funeral Home arrived while "they were proceeding with the most mortem... the head, I think the thoracic cavities and all, had been opened... our hearse took the (mahogany) casket out to the Naval Hospital late that evening... we dressed him and rolled the casket right in and put him in it." (Interview of Joe Hagen by Harrison Livingstone and Kathlee Fitzgerald, 8/15/91)


[...]

(page 740-741)[...]

Appendix J

[...]

THE "SHIPPING CASKET" STORY

A document discovered by Patrick Boyles surfaced, which originated at Gawlers Funeral Home in Washington, and was passed around at the 1992 Dallas A.S.K. Conference. The document had a handwritten notation on it which read "Body removed from metal shipping casket at USNH at Bethesda."

Joe Hagan, the president of Gawlers, wrote this himself. (Interview with Kathlee Fitzgerald and the author, March 31, 1993.) Hagan explained that the confusion is over semantics. He told me that the use of the term "casket" cannot be confused with what bodies are normally shipped in, such as a Zigler case, an air tray, a combination casket, or a "shipping container" which he said is what the military normally ships a body in. He stated that it would always be called a "container" in that case, and is not considered a casket, nor would it be called a casket.

Hagan went on to say that "The only reason we use that phrase was to identify the casket as a casket and as metal." He said that noone at Gawlers saw the body come out of the casket. nor was anyone from the funeral home there when the body arrived, but came much later, so they had no knowledge of it. He wrote the notation about a shipping casket because this is what he was told the body came in from Dallas. He said that noone would have called it a casket if it had been a shipping container or anything else, and that a casket is only called a casket if it is for viewing. (See Medical Encyclopedia Appendix for witnesses and events regarding the shipping casket.)


And here is the ARRB's report of 5/17/1995 and 6/11/1996 interviews with Joe Hagan: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=713

And Tom Robinson: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=711


And John Van Hoesen: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=712

Before the HSCA, the only interviews the Gawler's men ever did were with William Manchester for his 1967 book The Death of a President and Jim Bishop's 1968 book The Day Kennedy Was Shot.

Relevant section from The Day Kennedy Was Shot here http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3041



Correct.



Dr. Humes certainly was not talking about a phone call at 2 AM when he told his version of the Perry phone call story (by the way, Perry always described two separate phone calls with Humes, while Humes always reported one).

Dr. Humes gave an approximate 10:30 - 11:00 AM 11/23/1963 time for the Perry phone call, and indicated that he and Boswell indicated that they personally met together at the time of this phone call.

See the relevant section here:

Dr. BADEN. We're talking about also photographs Nos. 13 and 14. Did--in further discussing the exit perforation through the tracheotomy, did you have occasion to explore in the neck area beyond what is in the protocol, beyond what the description was? As to what was injured?

Dr. HUMES. Well, the trachea, I think we described the irregular or jagged wound of the trachea, and then we described a contusion in the apex of the lung and the inferior surface of the dome of the right pleural cavity, and that's one photograph that we were distressed not to find when we first went through and catalogued these photographs, because I distinctly recall going to great lengths to try and get the interior upper portion of the right thorax illuminated-you know the technical difficulties with that, getting the camera positioned and so forth, and what happened to that film, I don't know. There were a couple films that apparently had been exposed to light or whatever and then developed, but we never saw that photograph.

Dr. BADEN. From the time you first examined them, that particular photograph was never seen?

Dr. HUMES. Never available to us, but we thought it coincided very neatly with the path that ultimately we felt that that missile took.

Dr. BADEN. Continuing with the path. There is present in the X-rays Solne Opaque material to the right of the lower cervical spine which has been interpreted as being tiny bullet or bone fragments. Would the track, as you recall, be consistent with the missile striking a transverse process?

Dr. HUMES. Well, I must confess that we didn't make that interpretation at the time. I'm familiar with the writings of Dr. John Lattimer and of some reprints of his articles, and I'd have to go back and restudy it the way he has done. But as you can see from the point of entrance, it wasn't that far lateral. It could conceivably have nicked a--the edge of a transverse process.


...

Dr. HUMES. Laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound which I describe for your identification. You may wish to go back and look and add some corrections and whatever to this note. There's another fact of this. Having completed the examination, others might he interested in this--

Dr. BADEN. Yes. We're in session, Joe.

Dr. HUMES. Having completed the examination and remaining to assist the morticians in the preparation of the body, we did not leave the autopsy room until 5:30 or 6 in the morning. It was clearly obvious that a committee could not write the report. I had another commitment for that morning, a little later, a religious commitment with one of my children. And so I went home and took care of that, slept far several hours until about 6 in the evening of the day after, and then sat down and wrote the report that's sitting before you now myself, my own version of it. without any input other than the discussions that we thought that we had had, Dr. Boswell, Dr. Finck and myself. I then returned that morning and looked at what I had written--now wait, I'm a day ahead of myself---Saturday morning we discussed--

Dr. BOSWELL. Saturday morning we got together and we called Dallas.

Dr. HUMES. We called Dallas. See, we were at a loss because we hadn't appreciated the exit wound in the neck, we had been-- I have to go back a little bit. I think for your edification. There were four times as many people in the room most of the time as there are in this room at this moment, including the physician to the President, the Surgeon General of the Navy, the Commanding Officer of the Naval Medical Center, the Commanding Officer of the Naval Medical School, the Army, Navy, and Air Force aides to the President of the United States at one time or another, the Secret Service, the FBI and countless nondescript people who were unknown to me. Mistake No. 1. So, there was considerable confusion. So we went home. I took care of this obligation that I had. To refresh my mind, we met together around noon on Saturday, 11 in the morning, perhaps 10:30, something like that and---

Dr. BADEN. Now this is the day after?

Dr. HUMES. The day after, within 6 or 8 hours of having completed the examination, assisting Waller's and so forth for the preparation of the President's remains. We got together and discussed our problem. We said we've got to talk to the people in Dallas We should have talked to them the night before, but there was no way we could get out of the room. You'd have to understand that situation, that hysterical situation that existed. How we kept our wits about us as well as we did is amazing to me. I don't know how we managed as poorly or as well as we did under the circumstances. So I called Dr. Perry. Took me a little while to reach him. We had a very nice conversation on the phone in which he described a missile wound, what he interpreted as a missile wound, in the midline of the neck through which he had created a very quick emergency, as you can see from the photographs, tracheotomy incision effect destroying its value to us and obscuring it very gorgeously for us. Well, of course, the minute he said that to me, lights went on, and we said ah, we have some place for our missile to have gone. And then, of course, I asked him, much to my amazement, had he or any other physician in attendance upon the President, examined the back of the patient, his neck, or his shoulder. They said no, the patient had never been moved from his back while they were administering to him. So, the confusion that existed from some of his comments and the comments of other standby people in the emergency room in Dallas had been in the news media and elsewhere, so that added to the confusion. So, following that, and that discussion, and we having a meeting of minds as to generally what was necessary to be accomplished, and being informed by the various people in anthority that our gross report should be delivered to the White House physician no later than Sunday evening, the next day, 24 hours later, or not quite 24 hours later. Not having slept for about 48 hours, I went home and rested from noon until 8 or 10 that evening, Saturday evening, and then I sat down in front of other notes on which I had made minor comments, handwritten notes. I wrote the report which is present here. Now we also have here--and since it's in the record I want to comment about it some comments that I destroyed, some notes related to this, by burning in the fireplace of my home, and that is true. However, nothing that was destroyed is not present in this write-up. Now, why did I do that? It's interesting, and I've not spoken of this in public. Not too long here of this, I had had the experience of serving as an escort officer for some foreign physicians from foreign navies, who were being entertained and given a course of instruction in the United States. We had 20 or 30 of these chaps, and they used to come through every year or two, and I often was escort officer for them. They spent 5 weeks in Washington or 5 weeks in the field, then we went various places. We went to submarine bases and Marine Corps installations and naval training centers to teach them how physicians function in the American Navy. One of the places to which I happened to take them--and we tried to teach them a little Americana--I took them to Greenfield Village, which, as many of you know, Henry Ford set up adjacent to his former home in suburban Detroit, Dearborn. And in that location is a courthouse in which President Lincoln used to hold forth when he was riding the circuit, and these men were very impressed with that, and they knew who President Lincoln was and were impressed with his courthouse and many other things in Greenfield Village. But what I was amazed to find there, because I personally did not know it was there until I made that visit, was the chair in which President Lincoln sat when he was assassinated. Somehow or other they got that chair out of Ford's Theatre, and Henry Ford got it into Greenfield Village, and it's sitting in this courthouse. Now the back of that chair is stained with a dark substance, and there's much discussion to this day as to whether that stain represents the blood of the deceased President or whether it is Macassar. I don't know if you all remember what Macassar is. When people our age were young and you'd visit yoar grandmother, on the back of the sofa there were lovely lace doilies in the homes of many people. And if you recall what I'm speaking of--they were on the sofas and reclining chairs--and those lace doilies bear the name antimacassar. You could go to a store in this country and buy an anti macassar. They don't exist any more. And Macassar was a hair dressing that gentlemen wore in those days to keep their hair in place. And these officers were appalled that the American people would wish to have an object stained with the blood of the President on public display. And I was--it kind of bothered me a little bit-it still does, to this day. And here I was, now in the possession of a number of pieces of paper, some of which unavoidably, and in the confusion which I described to you earlier, were stained in part with the blood of our deceased President. And I knew that I would give the record over to some person or persons in authority, and I felt that these pieces of paper were inappropriate to be turned over to anyone, and it was for that reason and for that reason only, that, having transcribed those notes onto the pieces of paper that are before you, I destroyed those pieces of paper. I think I'd do the same thing tomorrow. I had a similar problem, because I felt they would fail into the hands of some sensation seeker.


And an 8:00 - 9:00 AM estimate for his 2/13/1996 ARRB interview:

Q. During the course of the autopsy--

A. Let me interrupt there. May I?

Q. Sure.

A. My problem is, very simply stated, we had an entrance wound high in the posterior back above the scapula. We didn't know where the exit wound was at that point. I'd be the first one to admit it. We knew in general in the past that we should have been more prescient than we were, I must confess, because when we removed the breast plate and examined the thoracic cavity, we saw a contusion on the upper lobe of the lung. There was no defect in the pleura anyplace. So it's obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung.
Of course, the more I thought about it, the more I realized it had to go out from the neck.
It was the only place it could go, after it was not found anywhere in the X-rays. So early the next morning, I called Parkland Hospital and talked with Malcolm Perry, I guess it was. And he said, Oh, yeah, there was a wound right in the middle of the neck by the tie, and we used that for the tracheotomy. Well, they obliterated, literally obliterated--when we went back to the photographs, we thought we might have seen some indication of the edge of that wound in the gaping skin where the--but it wouldn't make a great deal of sense to go slashing open the neck. What would we learn? Nothing, you know. So I didn't--I don't know if anybody said don't do this or don't do that. I wouldn't have done it no matter what anybody said. That was not important. I mean, that's--

Q. Do you know what the standard autopsy protocol is for gunshot wounds and autopsy of the neck?

A. Well, no. I haven't seen that in--what you say, standard, I mean, many times if you have a track of a missile, it's helpful to take a long probe and put it in the position. It can tell you a lot of things. If you know where the point of entrance and the point of exit are, it's duck soup. But for me to start probing around in this man's neck, all I would make was false passages. There wouldn't be any track that I could put a probe through or anything of that nature. It just doesn't work that way.

Q. Was any probe used at all to track the path--

A. I don't recall that there was. There might have been some abortive efforts superficially in the back of the neck, but no.
And if there's a standard protocol, I don't know where you'd find it, to tell you the truth.


...

Q. Dr. Humes, I'd like to go through the events as they occurred, as best you can recollect them, on November 26th, starting from--

A. 26th?

Q. Excuse me. November 22nd, starting in the afternoon. The first question I'd have for you would be whether you heard from anyone prior to the time the autopsy began about the nature of the wounds that President Kennedy had suffered.

A. Not at all.

Q. Are you familiar with the name of Robert Livingston, Dr. Robert Livingston?

A. Is this him? No, that's Harry Livingstone. No, I'm not.

Q. I'd like to show you a transcript of some testimony that he offered in the case of Crenshaw v. Sutherland?

A. May I ask who is Dr. Livingston?

Q. Yes.

A. Not the guy in the jungle.

Q. According to "Who's Who in America," Robert Livingston is a neuroscientist who received his undergraduate and medical degrees from Stanford University, and he was a resident at Stanford Hospital in San Francisco. In 1963, he was the chief of the Neurobiology Lab at the National Institute of Mental Health.

A. Okay.

Q. Does that help refresh your recollection of who Dr. Livingston is?

A. I don't know him from Adam, personally. I never heard of him before this minute, but I don't doubt his qualifications or whatever.

Q. I'd like you to take a moment, if you would, and read the deposition from page 23, line 1, to page 26, line 16.

You should also feel free to read any other part of the deposition that you'd like.

A. Now, where?

Q. Page 23, line 1. This is in microscript.

A. Page 22--okay. I see it now. Okay.
[Pause.]
BY MR. GUNN:
Q. For the record, the exhibit number is No. 24.

A. Well, this is ridiculous. I was at home at this time. He never talked to me, period. Absolutely never did talk to me. I don't need to read any further, to tell you the truth. I mean, I don't know what he's talking about. I was at home helping my wife prepare for a social event that night, and our first knowledge of the death of the President was when our children came home from school on the school bus, came in running, yelling, all screaming, of course, "The President was shot." And I couldn't even remember where the President was, to tell you the truth, at that time. But I never talked to this person.

Q. Could you complete through page 26, line 16, please?
A. I get confused. It stops and goes over to another...

Q. 24, 25, 26.

A. It doesn't follow, sir. It doesn't follow.

Q. 23.

A. I see.

Q. 24.

A. Well, this doesn't follow this. It makes no sense. It's a nonsense. I don't mean it frivolously.

Q. At this point it says--there is an objection, calls for speculation, then there's some colloquy, and it's back to--

A. What? All I see is the word "speculation"--oh, somebody objects--

Q. "Objection, calls for speculation."

A. Oh, okay.

Q. The passage between the two pages.

A. Okay. I didn't understand that. This is fantasy. Pure fantasy. I don't know where this guy was or where he's coming from. He was concerned about the autopsy, he called me and talked to me about it? He never talked to me. I mean, I'll read it, but I don't know what good it's going to do you.
Never happened. That's all I can tell you. If I did, I mean, I developed amnesia of some kind or other. But a long conversation like this at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, absolutely, categorically did not occur.

Q. Just so the record is clear here, you are saying that--would it be fair to say that you're saying that Dr. Livingston never called you on the 22nd--

A. To my recollection, he never called me. The only person, outside of the people right there on the scene, I spoke to was Bruce Smith. Bruce Smith, a very dear friend, close friend of mine, was the Deputy Director-Navy at the AFIP at that time. He called and offered the services of the AFIP, anybody I needed, which was very logical. I had been stationed at the AFIP. You know, it was home to me. It was a very cordial conversation. "Bruce," I said, "Thanks a lot. Let me see what the problem is, and if I need any help, I'll call you back." When I saw what the problem was, I needed a ballistics person. And I called Bruce back. I said, "Who do you have that's in ballistics?" He said, well, Colonel Finck just got back from Panama, where he'd been unscrambling some who-shot-whom between the Americans and the Panamanians, one of the typical--which was familiar to me because I served for a couple years in Panama during a revolution. So I was very familiar with that. I said, "Well, that sounds great."
I welcomed the assistance of Dr. Finck. That is absolutely the only person that I spoke to outside of that building that day. Now, whether he talked to somebody else, I can't--it could be. He could have talked to J or he could have talked to any number of people in our department. We had a big department, you know, but I did not speak with him.


...

[color]Q. When is the first time you had a conversation with anyone outside of people in the autopsy room regarding the nature of the President's wounds?

A. The next morning when I called Malcolm Perry.

Q. Approximately--

A. I'm pretty sure that's who I spoke to. I know it is.

Q. Approximately what time did you speak to Dr. Perry?

A. I think 8 or 9 o'clock on Saturday morning.

Q. Were you aware of any telephone calls being made from the autopsy room during the time of the autopsy?

A. Well, you see, that's possible. Certainly not by me, but we had a large defect in the side of--in the right side of the President's skull, and there was dialogue back and forth between somebody- -I don't know whether the FBI or Secret Service-- that fragments of bone had been picked up on the street. And there was conversation back and forth between--I guess they were Secret Service people. I had no idea, to tell you the truth. And they were going to be sent to us, which was fine because we needed to close the defect if we could. It didn't turn out to be enough to totally close the defect. We did other things to accomplish that. But your specific question, if these phone conversations were going on, I was not directing them, I was not involved in them, and really it wasn't my problem.

Q. Was there a telephone in the autopsy room?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall whether anyone was stationed at the telephone during the course--

A. No, no. If there was, I didn't have anything to do with it.

Q. Did you make any attempts to call anyone in Dallas prior to the completion of the autopsy?

A. No.

Q. Were you aware of any other kinds of communications, in addition to telephone calls, between Bethesda Hospital and Dallas regarding wounds of the body?

A. No.

Q. In addition to the call that you had with Dr. Perry, did you speak with any other person who had been in Dallas on the day of the assassination regarding the nature of the President's wounds?

A. Contemporaneously at that time?

Q. Thank you. Let me try the question again. Prior to the time that you had completed the autopsy protocol, did you speak with any other doctor--

A. No.

Q. --or law enforcement official about the nature of the wounds on President Kennedy's body?

A. I did not.

Q. Dr. Perry is the only one, then, prior to the completion--

A. Right.

Q. --of the autopsy protocol?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you see any written materials prior to the time that you completed the autopsy protocol that discussed or described events in Dallas?

A. No.

Q. In the autopsy protocol, there is reference to information that happened in Dallas. Do you recall how you came to have that information?

A. I'd have to know--

Q. I'll show you the autopsy protocol.

A. Yes. I can't recall.

Q. Just start with the first two paragraphs of the autopsy protocol.

MR. GUNN: Dr. Humes is now examining Exhibit 3.

[Pause.]

THE WITNESS: Yes, this makes reference to the local newspapers, which is the source, plus I may have had the television on sometime on Saturday. I'm not sure. I was busy doing a lot of things. I can't tell you for sure. I had no personal knowledge. I had to get it secondhand, whatever it was. It was not my job. It was not my responsibility in the first place.[/color]

...

Q. Did you consider the autopsy to be a medical-legal autopsy?

A. Yes. Oh, sure.

Q. And there was a gunshot wound to the neck, wasn't there?

A. Well, you'd better clarify that. There was a big gaping tracheotomy wound in the anterior neck. I learned later that there had been a gunshot wound in that location, but I didn't know it. That was 99 percent of my problem. There was a bullet wound in the back above the scapula, like I mentioned earlier, and there was a wound of entrance in the back of the skull and a wound of exit in the skull. Those were the wounds.


...

A. Well, we looked at this wound in the upper part of his neck, and we made a customary Y-shaped incision to do the rest of the autopsy and removed the breast plate, which was standard operating procedure, and examined the inside of the thorax. And that's when we saw the contusion of the dome of the upper lobe of the right lung, and we wondered, Where's the bullet? You know. Should have called Dallas right then and there. It would have saved me a lot of worry and grief for several hours, because X-rays hadn't found it for us. Like it could have been in his thigh or it could have been in his buttock. It could have been any damn place. We don't know where it went. It was obvious after we talked to the doctors the next morning where it went. It went out. That's why we couldn't find it. And we weren't going to spend the rest of the night there, you know.
Meantime, George Burkley is telling me, you know, the family wants to get out of here sometime tonight. Then we proceeded with the dissection of the lungs, heart, and abdominal contents and so forth.


...

Q. During the time that you were performing the autopsy, did you ever identify what you took to be the margin of a wound in the area of the trach incision?

A. No.


...

Q. During the course of the deposition, we have talked three photographs that you had had some understanding existed and that you did not see here today. I'd like to ask you a question about another possible photograph or X-ray to see if you have any recollection of it. Do you recall any photograph or X-ray that was taken with a probe inserted into the posterior thorax?

A. No, absolutely not. I do not have a recollection of such.





Sibert and O'Neill had to have left by then. It takes at least 45 minutes to drive to the FBI lab, and FBI lab firearm expert Robert Fraier wrote in this report that the two large fragments recovered from the autopsy had been personally delivered by Sibert and O'Neill at 1:45 AM: https://www.history-matters.com/essa...ks/Figure1.jpg

And at 2:00 AM a teletype was sent describing the autopsy findings as summarized by Sibert and O'Neill: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=680

According to Google Maps, it takes at least 45 minutes at night to drive from the former Bethesda Naval Hospital to the FBI crime lab. Now there's the unknown element of how much time would be spent walking, waiting, etc.


Hagan’s direct statement
Hagan, of Gawler’s funeral home, stated that “the embalming began shortly after midnight, and concluded about 3 A. M.” This puts the end of the autopsy at shortly after midnight at the latest.

(Hagan had a hard time remembering what went on. He recalled arriving with the casket, but also recalled arriving “no later than 12:30AM.” But the casket arrived at 2AM. His testimony cannot all be correct, as he himself later realized. Nevertheless, he directly testified to the embalming starting shortly after midnight.)


Agent Sibert leaves
FBI Agent James Sibert said he left before midnight. He also said he left at the end of the autopsy. This is how he described the scene as he was leaving the autopsy:



If we take Sibert at his word, the doctors were not even attending to the body at the time he left. He testified that the doctors were gathering records, completing the final cataloguing, and filling out paperwork after the autopsy. You have tried very hard to dismiss his testimony as irrelevant by saying he just assumed the autopsy was over, but it is much stronger than that. He witnessed them stop working on the body and start working on the concluding paperwork.

This is consistent with the doctors learning about the throat wound after the autopsy.

Yes, Sibert did witness the autopsy pathologists leave the room (by the way, what was up with Humes saying "I never left the room" to the HSCA?), perhaps to make a phone call?

I want to bring your attention to what Francis X. O'Neill told the HSCA and ARRB. We know from the 1:45 AM Robert Frazier document and the 2:00 AM teletype that they couldn't have left the autopsy much later than midnight, because the trip is like an hour away.

So O'Neill could not be telling the truth when he told the HSCA "I did not discuss any autopsy procedures with the embalmers. I last saw the body just prior to the dressing, after the morticians were through.":https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc....eId=8&tab=page

Or when he told the ARRB that he saw the Gawler's funeral team reconstruct the body until it was in "good shape", embalming, dressing and casketing, speaking as if he had a clear recollection of this event: https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/j...ll_9-12-97.pdf

Since it took at least 3:30 AM to get everything ready, with personnel reminding them to hurry up, it must have taken longer than 1:00 AM to get to this stage of the restoration work by Gawler's funeral team.




I want to point out the unexplained "2:00 - 2:45 AM" information.

1. 11/30/1963 statement of Secret Service agent Clinton J. Hill
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0371a.htm

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc....d=758&tab=page

The President's body was taken to the morgue at the hospital, accompanied by ASAIC Kellerman, SA Greer, and Admiral Burkley, for an autopsy. SA Landis and I secured the 17th Floor of the hospital and remained there with Mrs. Kennedy. We established a communications system with the White House and handled all telephone calls both incoming and outgoing, screening each and every call. Any person attempting to reach the 17th Floor was also screened.

At approximately 2:45 a.m., November 23, I was requested by ASAIC Kellerman to come to the morgue to once again view the body. When I arrived the autopsy had been completed and ASAIC Kellerman, SA Greer, General McHugh and I viewed the wounds. I observed a wound about six inches down from the neckline on the back just to the right of the spinal column. I observed another wound on the right rear portion of the skull. Attendants of the Joseph Gawler Mortuary were at this time preparing the body for placement in the casket. A new casket had been obtained from Gawler Mortuary in which the body was to be placed.

I went back to the 17th Floor of the hospital at approximately 3:10 a.m. The President's body was taken from the U.S. Naval Hospital, Bethesda, Maryland, at 3:56 a.m., accompanied by Mrs. Kennedy and Attorney General Kennedy, in the rear of a U.S. Navy ambulance driven by SA Greer. ASAIC Kellerman rode in the right front seat. I rode in the right front seat of a White House limousine immediately behind the ambulance. The motorcade was accompanied by motorcycle police and arrived at the White House at 4:24 a.m. The casket was taken immediately to the East Room and placed in the center of the room on a catephalt.


2. 11/29/1963 Statement of Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman

https://www.history-matters.com/arch...ol18_0371a.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/sa-kelle.htm

Mrs. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and General McHugh sat in the rear of the ambulance- SAs Greer, Landis and myself with Dr. Burkley rode in the front to Bethesda, with a police escort. The body was immediately taken to the morgue and the family was assigned rooms in the Towers of the Center. Hill and Landis remained with Mrs. Kennedy in her quarters and William Greer and I remained in the morgue and viewed the autopsy examinations which were performed by Vice Admiral Gallway, Commanding Officer, NNMC, Chief Pathologist Cdr. James Humes, Lt. Col. Pierre A. Finck who is Chief, Military Environmental Pathology Division and Chief of Wound Ballistics, Pathology Branch, and J. Thornton Boswell, Cdr. Medical Corps, USN, together with the Naval Medical Staff. SA O'Leary was also in the morgue briefly. Agents O'Neill and Siebert were present.

During the night Joseph Cawlers Sons, Inc., funeral directors, were notified by Robert Kennedy and Sargent Shriver and a new coffin was obtained. After the completion of the autopsy and before the embalming I summoned SA Hill down to the morgue to view the body and to witness the damage of the gunshot wounds. The embalming was performed after the autopsy by the staff of Joseph Gawlers.

Prior to our departure from the Naval Hospital I received all film, x-rays, that were used during this autopsy, and upon arrival at the White House I turned them over to SAIC Bouck.


3. The Day Kennedy Was Shot by Jim Bishop 1968 (posted above)

4. The 2 AM casket delivery notation on the Gawler's "First Call Sheet"

5. Roy Kellerman's Warren Commission testimony (you posted that)




Did you forget the line "Commander James J. Humes, Bethesda’s chief of pathology, telephoned Perry in Dallas shortly after midnight, and clinical photographs were taken to satisfy all the Texas doctors
who had been in Trauma Room No. 1.
"?

BTW you should also probably read these:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=956

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=962

And you have the sheer gall to accuse me of posting a wall of text?

The majority of your post is old hat, repeatedly debunked rubbish, gleaned from the echo-chambers of nutcase CT websites (i.e totally unreliable sources). And despite your total lack of expertise in the field of pathology (and other fields) you still insist in drawing your OWN (flawed) conclusions from data sets while spurning the conclusions of trained and experience experts in those fields.

Why is that?
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

Last edited by smartcooky; 15th March 2018 at 12:42 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2018, 12:43 PM   #556
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,369
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
<snipped running away>
Answer the questions, MicahJava.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2018, 02:28 PM   #557
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,760
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
And you have the sheer gall to accuse me of posting a wall of text?

The majority of your post is old hat, repeatedly debunked rubbish, gleaned from the echo-chambers of nutcase CT websites (i.e totally unreliable sources). And despite your total lack of expertise in the field of pathology (and other fields) you still insist in drawing your OWN (flawed) conclusions from data sets while spurning the conclusions of trained and experience experts in those fields.

Why is that?
MJ's rambling reminds me of the Stephen Hawking quote that "the greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." What possible good is such a helter-skelter method, one that apparently equates piling up a mass of disconnected minutiae with a consilient approach, when no useful conclusion can be drawn from it?
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2018, 03:28 PM   #558
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,401
The question he has yet to answer is why any of this is important, or proves conspiracy.

How does ignoring the throat wound prove conspiracy?
How is admitting this fact to anyone who will listen constitute a cover-up?

You have an entry wound in the back (obvious from tissue and fiber evience), and you have a CLEAR exit wound in the throat (again, tissue and fiber evidence).

One bullet to the back and another to the head, both a 6.5x52mm round fired from the same rifle (belonging to Oswald).
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2018, 08:39 PM   #559
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,877
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
And you have the sheer gall to accuse me of posting a wall of text?

The majority of your post is old hat, repeatedly debunked rubbish, gleaned from the echo-chambers of nutcase CT websites (i.e totally unreliable sources). And despite your total lack of expertise in the field of pathology (and other fields) you still insist in drawing your OWN (flawed) conclusions from data sets while spurning the conclusions of trained and experience experts in those fields.

Why is that?
What do you mean by "CT Websites"? Mary Farrel, History-Matters, and ARRC is a direct source to the original JFK-related documents.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2018, 08:41 PM   #560
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,877
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
The question he has yet to answer is why any of this is important, or proves conspiracy.

How does ignoring the throat wound prove conspiracy?
How is admitting this fact to anyone who will listen constitute a cover-up?

You have an entry wound in the back (obvious from tissue and fiber evience), and you have a CLEAR exit wound in the throat (again, tissue and fiber evidence).

One bullet to the back and another to the head, both a 6.5x52mm round fired from the same rifle (belonging to Oswald).
Axxman, the clothing fiber evidence is not very valuable.

see: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2989

This has been pointed out to you several times.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:14 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.