|
|
|
|
|
 July 25, 2011, 10:30:25 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 589
|
Actually, it's more of a "Magic Bullet" when you consider the CT explanation. When you ask where did the bullet go that exited Kennedy (it should have hit the target in front of Kennedy--Connally) no one can tell you. Cyril Wecht even answered that. I guess it disappeared like "Magic."
kevin: do you even know what "q1" is? do you know what a bullet does when it hits and obstruction like, say, a liveoak tree branch? (your friend arlen, gerald and vincent can't help you here?)
-------------------------
|
|
|
 Reply |
|
|
|
|
July 25, 2011, 10:34:39 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2568
|
The EOP entry and the suspected exit wound were the subjects of the only angular measurement reported by Humes.
Now show us the basis for your claim that “. . . Humes described this back wound as a 45-60 degree downward angle..” You posted this statement now give us the relevant quotation of Humes.
Again, I ask you to quote Humes.
Herbert
According to Siebert and O'Neill they WERE quoting Humes... everything in their report was what the DOCTORS said... they, as FBI agents, did not create or make medical judgements... When those angles did not work, they were conveniently dropped from the autopsy... like the fragment existing the throat... .. Bill, considering all you have to work with is the 1964 WCR and all its sources... and you rely upon and trust these sources as you refer to them in posts every day... maybe you can explain how a poorly executed investigation from 1964 with evidence that has been repeatedly shown to be faked, altered, created and/or lost... is more reliable than anything and everything that has turned up since... ? Why is evidence in 1980 that proves the WCR to be complete BS any less valuable than the WCR being show to be the garbage it is in 2011, 2001, 1996 or any other year?
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 25, 2011, 10:52:10 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2201
|
According to Siebert and O'Neill they WERE quoting Humes... everything in their report was what the DOCTORS said... they, as FBI agents, did not create or make medical judgements...
Sibert and O’Neill did not surround by quotation marks the words that you attribute to Humes. So they were not quoting Humes and merely reported their interpretations of Humes.
When those angles did not work, they were conveniently dropped from the autopsy... like the fragment existing the throat... ..
The published autopsy report presumed that the bullet which entered the back exited the throat. Frankly, David, I wonder have you every read the autopsy report. Judging from your comments, I suspect that you have only read the report by Sibert and O’Neill. Herbert
Bill, considering all you have to work with is the 1964 WCR and all its sources... and you rely upon and trust these sources as you refer to them in posts every day...
maybe you can explain how a poorly executed investigation from 1964 with evidence that has been repeatedly shown to be faked, altered, created and/or lost... is more reliable than anything and everything that has turned up since... ?
Why is evidence in 1980 that proves the WCR to be complete BS any less valuable than the WCR being show to be the garbage it is in 2011, 2001, 1996 or any other year?
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
July 25, 2011, 11:27:46 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2201
|
According to Siebert and O'Neill they WERE quoting Humes... everything in their report was what the DOCTORS said... they, as FBI agents, did not create or make medical judgements...
When those angles did not work, they were conveniently dropped from the autopsy... like the fragment existing the throat... ..
Humes never speculated that a fragment exited the throat. Instead the Parkland doctors raised the issue at their press conference. Herbert
Bill, considering all you have to work with is the 1964 WCR and all its sources... and you rely upon and trust these sources as you refer to them in posts every day...
maybe you can explain how a poorly executed investigation from 1964 with evidence that has been repeatedly shown to be faked, altered, created and/or lost... is more reliable than anything and everything that has turned up since... ?
Why is evidence in 1980 that proves the WCR to be complete BS any less valuable than the WCR being show to be the garbage it is in 2011, 2001, 1996 or any other year?
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
July 25, 2011, 11:29:24 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 570
|
I'll try to be easy on you since you appear to be new to this. Your text will be eaten up by the graphics, so try to add a hard carriage return, blank line after your graphics command. That upper drawing was from Bugliosi's book, but it appears that the guy who did it for him knew nothing about the JFK case. He has the bullet going through Connally's back about halway from the midline to the right armpit whereas the entrance wound was INSIDE the right armpit. And how in the world does he have the bullet both go through Connally's wrist and not hit anything on the right leg and miss the hat and also get deflected into the left thigh? The lower diagram seems to be a sketch Ken Rahn used to explain where the fragments went. I don't think he meant it to be an accurate trajectory but merely diagrammatic. Want to see really silly WC diagram? Take a look at Free Frank Warner's first attempt. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login He has the bullet going through Connally's THUMB and then his hat! Your right on both counts. The VB' picture is from his Reclaiming History and comes from Myers I guess. The bottom one is from a Rahn NAA site. I wasnt trying to use it as forensic proof by as "diagrammatic" as well. Drawings are extremely subjective arent they? How could a bullet like C399 deflect off what could only be a bone at the angle suggested by Myers or at all really and look like..C399? BTW..Do you not agree with Rahn either?? Are you the same Tony Marsh that attended the Providence Conference in April 1999,argueing against the "mixing bowl" theory, claiming that this idea was "fatally flawed", and proposed a "nugget" theory instead.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
July 25, 2011, 11:35:24 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2201
|
Your right on both counts. The VB' picture is from his Reclaiming History and comes from Myers I guess. The bottom one is from a Rahn NAA site. I wasnt trying to use it as forensic proof by as "diagrammatic" as well. Drawings are extremely subjective arent they? How could a bullet like C399 deflect off what could only be a bone at the angle suggested by Myers or at all really and look like..C399? BTW..Do you not agree with Rahn either?? Are you the same Tony Marsh that attended the Providence Conference in April 1999,argueing against the "mixing bowl" theory, claiming that this idea was "fatally flawed", and proposed a "nugget" theory instead.
The problem with the diagram is that the bullet deflects toward, not away, from the wrist. This unphysical behavior brands the drawing as a cartoon. Herbert
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
July 25, 2011, 11:40:06 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2338
|
This thread is an example of what happens when people who don't know or understand anything about bullets and firearms try to intellect their way through a discussion about them. Carry on, its good entertainment anyway!
-------------------------
-------------------------
"you're the cop, you figure it out"
-Lee H. Oswald to Dallas Police detectives, weekend
of 11-22-63.
"Part of the reason why we avoided talking about this thing, because every time you say something, somebody misinterprets what you say."
-James. J. Humes, excerpt of ARRB statement, 2-13-96
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
July 25, 2011, 11:55:14 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2568
|
Sibert and O’Neill did not surround by quotation marks the words that you attribute to Humes. So they were not quoting Humes and merely reported their interpretations of Humes.The published autopsy report presumed that the bullet which entered the back exited the throat. Frankly, David, I wonder have you every read the autopsy report. Judging from your comments, I suspect that you have only read the report by Sibert and O’Neill.
Herbert
Not only have I read it I started a thread asking what happened to the autopsy report that Rankin refers to describing a fragment existing the throat... which does not exist in the extant autopsy at the archives...
As I remember the FBI agents said they wrote down what the doctors said... nothing more or less... the 45 and 60 degree numbers came from Humes...
This was NOT their impressions... this is what THEY say Humes said...James Sibert The following is a brief summary of key points from James Sibert's deposition to the ARRB. Sibert is a former FBI agent who witnessed the unloading of the body from the casket and who witnessed the autopsy from a distance of a few feet. * Sibert said he doubted the single-bullet theory (SBT) because the back wound was just too low on the back for it to be possible (Deposition of James W. Sibert to ARRB, September 11, 1997, pp. 161-162). He added that another reason he doubted the SBT was what he saw when the pathologists probed the back wound (Deposition, p. 162). * Sibert unequivocally placed the back wound below the scapula, i.e., below the top of the shoulder blade (Deposition, pp. 74-75, 114, 161-162). * Sibert said the autopsy pathologists determined that the back wound had no point of exit (Deposition, pp. 110-112, 118-119). * Sibert said that the placement of the back wound below the scapula was both what he saw and that it was "the first location that Humes gave us," i.e., that that was the location Humes gave for the wound during the autopsy (Deposition, pp. 161-162). (It should be noted that that location agrees with the location given for the wound on the autopsy face sheet.) * Sibert noted that the back wound location's matched the holes in the back of the president's shirt and coat, and he rejected the theory that the shirt and coat bunched-up high enough to account for the location of the clothing holes, observing that the shirt would not have moved markedly even if Kennedy had raised his arm and that the president's back brace would have helped to hold the shirt in place (Deposition, p. 162). * Sibert said there were a lot of high-ranking military officers at the autopsy, that the autopsy room was crowded, and that it was fairly noisy (Deposition, pp. 76-77, 152). * Sibert said there was no visible damage on the head forward of the right ear (Deposition, pp. 67-68). This is in sharp contrast to the autopsy photos. * Sibert said the large head wound was in the right-rear part of the head (Deposition, pp. 65-72). He said his 8-25-77 wound diagram for the HSCA made the wound somewhat too small and that the wound was "a little" to the right of where he placed it in that diagram (Deposition, pp. 70-71). In the diagram he placed the wound squarely in the middle of the back of the head (see Livingstone, Killing Kennedy and the Hoax of the Century, p. 344). Sibert said it was a little larger than that and a little more to the right of the midline (Deposition, p. 71). * Sibert said the alleged autopsy photo of the back of the head (which shows the back of the head intact) did not "at all" match his recollection of the wound, and he speculated that for this photo scalp had been pulled over the large defect (Deposition, pp. 126-128). * Sibert said he did not remember seeing the metal stirrup that is seen to support Kennedy's head in some of the autopsy photos (Deposition, p. 122). * With regard to Humes's statement at the start of the autopsy that it was apparent there had been surgery to the head, Sibert said that was exactly what Humes said, and that at no point during the autopsy did Humes retract or qualify that statement (Deposition, pp. 95-96).Geoff... how about bringing something to the table if you're going to come and make negative comments about the food....?
Tell us what you think you know that the rest of us don't....
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 26, 2011, 12:35:56 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2201
|
Not only have I read it I started a thread asking what happened to the autopsy report that Rankin refers to describing a fragment existing the throat... which does not exist in the extant autopsy at the archives...
Rankin concluded his discussion of the shallow entry and the fragment exiting the throat will an illuminating statement. He said, “We will have to probably get help from the doctors about it, and find out, we have asked for the original notes of the autopsy on that question, too.” Note that Rankin does not say we will need to reread the autopsy materials nor did he say that they have received the autopsy materials. Instead, Rankin stated the fact that the commission asked for the unseen materials. The obvious interpretation of Rankin is that they were referring to the FBI report on the autopsy and were not reading from a secret report.
As I remember the FBI agents said they wrote down what the doctors said... nothing more or less... the 45 and 60 degree numbers came from Humes...
This was NOT their impressions... this is what THEY say Humes said...[/color]
I acknowledge your failures to quote Humes. Herbert
James Sibert
The following is a brief summary of key points from James Sibert's deposition to the ARRB. Sibert is a former FBI agent who witnessed the unloading of the body from the casket and who witnessed the autopsy from a distance of a few feet.
* Sibert said he doubted the single-bullet theory (SBT) because the back wound was just too low on the back for it to be possible (Deposition of James W. Sibert to ARRB, September 11, 1997, pp. 161-162). He added that another reason he doubted the SBT was what he saw when the pathologists probed the back wound (Deposition, p. 162).
* Sibert unequivocally placed the back wound below the scapula, i.e., below the top of the shoulder blade (Deposition, pp. 74-75, 114, 161-162).
* Sibert said the autopsy pathologists determined that the back wound had no point of exit (Deposition, pp. 110-112, 118-119).
* Sibert said that the placement of the back wound below the scapula was both what he saw and that it was "the first location that Humes gave us," i.e., that that was the location Humes gave for the wound during the autopsy (Deposition, pp. 161-162). (It should be noted that that location agrees with the location given for the wound on the autopsy face sheet.)
* Sibert noted that the back wound location's matched the holes in the back of the president's shirt and coat, and he rejected the theory that the shirt and coat bunched-up high enough to account for the location of the clothing holes, observing that the shirt would not have moved markedly even if Kennedy had raised his arm and that the president's back brace would have helped to hold the shirt in place (Deposition, p. 162).
* Sibert said there were a lot of high-ranking military officers at the autopsy, that the autopsy room was crowded, and that it was fairly noisy (Deposition, pp. 76-77, 152).
* Sibert said there was no visible damage on the head forward of the right ear (Deposition, pp. 67-68). This is in sharp contrast to the autopsy photos.
* Sibert said the large head wound was in the right-rear part of the head (Deposition, pp. 65-72). He said his 8-25-77 wound diagram for the HSCA made the wound somewhat too small and that the wound was "a little" to the right of where he placed it in that diagram (Deposition, pp. 70-71). In the diagram he placed the wound squarely in the middle of the back of the head (see Livingstone, Killing Kennedy and the Hoax of the Century, p. 344). Sibert said it was a little larger than that and a little more to the right of the midline (Deposition, p. 71).
* Sibert said the alleged autopsy photo of the back of the head (which shows the back of the head intact) did not "at all" match his recollection of the wound, and he speculated that for this photo scalp had been pulled over the large defect (Deposition, pp. 126-128).
* Sibert said he did not remember seeing the metal stirrup that is seen to support Kennedy's head in some of the autopsy photos (Deposition, p. 122).
* With regard to Humes's statement at the start of the autopsy that it was apparent there had been surgery to the head, Sibert said that was exactly what Humes said, and that at no point during the autopsy did Humes retract or qualify that statement (Deposition, pp. 95-96).
Geoff... how about bringing something to the table if you're going to come and make negative comments about the food....?
Tell us what you think you know that the rest of us don't....
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
July 26, 2011, 12:59:09 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2568
|
I already have David, many times. There is no point in talking to fence posts.
Sounds about right Geoff... now you know how it feels discussing the case with the LNer crowd...  aint gonna learn what you dont wanna know.... Herbert... Go read the Exec transcripts from Jan... He refers to an AUTOPSY REPORT... not the FBI report, not some unseen secret report... but the the AUTOPSY REPORT... Except the bit about the fragment OUT the front of the throat is not in the autopsy report... neither the one Rankin refers to or the one Humes destroyed... Acknowledge whatever you like Herbert... the only people taking notes at the autopsy that are reproduced in their original form is the Sibert/O'Neill report Humes was not recorded, there was no stenographer... what is in the FBI report is basically what Humes said... what you do with that info is up to you... Humes bunred his notes, Finck's notes and the first draft of the autopsy repoirt... a real standup governmental guy....
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
| 0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
|
