Author Topic: ED Forum falling apart!  (Read 39084 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Ray Mitcham

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4379
Re: ED Forum falling apart!
« Reply #140 on: May 07, 2013, 12:18:29 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Dr Akin,anesthesiologist at Parkland.


Dr. AKIN - There was a midline neck wound below the level of the cricoid cartilage, about 1 to 1.5 cm. in diameter, the lower part of this had been cut across when I saw the wound, it had been cut across with a knife in the performance of the tracheotomy. The back of the right occipitalparietal portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance extruding."

Another one who was lying or wrong. :rofl:

Could he see that with JFK lying on the back of his head?

He saw what he saw, or are you calling him a liar?


Who are you Tony..You can be wrong and not be a liar..

Come on Ray if you were interested in truth then you would know this question needs to be answered..

Could he see what he claimed to see with JFK lying on his back? Yes or No...


I wasn't there, so I can't say what he saw. However you seem to think that all the doctors who saw the wound in the parietaloccipital area were wrong. Even Paul May thinks it was there, as he quoted Dr Peters statement.

Offline David Von Pein

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2398
    • THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY: A LONE-GUNMAN VIEWPOINT
Re: ED Forum falling apart!
« Reply #141 on: May 07, 2013, 12:27:25 AM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Dr. McClelland is on record saying things that most certainly place him in the following categories (whether McClelland realizes he's in all of these categories or not). And my guess is that there are probably some additional people in the world who have decided to ride McClelland's coattails and therefore also fall into each of these categories as well:

1.) Robert McClelland is definitely a "CTer" [conspiracist].

2.) McClelland thinks the fatal head shot came from the famous Grassy Knoll.

3.) McClelland does not think the autopsy photos are fakes.

4.) McClelland thinks the scalp in the back of JFK's head was intact (just as depicted in the autopsy photos).

5.) McClelland thinks that there was a huge blasted-out hole in the right-rear of JFK's skull.

Now, maybe Ben Holmes would like to call me a liar again.

If so, I can always repeat the above five items, which indicate beyond all doubt that a conspiracy theorist named Robert Nelson McClelland is actually nutty enough to believe in an intact REAR SCALP but a blown-out REAR SKULL.

McClelland has obviously never even once thought about how silly and impossible his theory is. Because if he ever stopped to think about it for any length of time at all, he could never even begin to believe that a bullet could have created a massive blown-out exit wound in the occipital area of a human skull and yet leave the scalp in that same occipital area totally free of any injury. And yet that is EXACTLY what Dr. McClelland said he believes happened.

Offline David S Lifton

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 52
Re: ED Forum falling apart!
« Reply #142 on: May 07, 2013, 12:34:11 AM »
As set forth--verbatim--in Chapter 13 of Best Evidence, Dr. Peters told me--when I interviewed him for about an hour, on November 12, 1966: "I'd be willing to swear that the wound was in the occiput. . . I could see the occipital lobes clearly, and so I know it was that far back, on the skull. I could look inside the skull, and I thought it looked like the cerebellum was injured, or missing, because the occipital lobes seemed to rest almost on the foramen magnum . . . [it] looked like the occipital lobes were resting on the foramen magnum. It was as if something underneath them, that usually kept them up from that a little ways, namely, the cerebellum and brainstem, might been injured, or missing."   (November 12, 1966; taped; quoted verbatim; see Chapter 13, of Best Evidence, subsection titled: "What was visible through the skull?"

That was the same interview in which Dr. Peters told me the size of the wound was about the size "of a hen's egg" (i.e., the kind of egg you buy by the dozen, in the supermarket).

FYI: I (and Pat Valentino) then interviewed Dr. Peters in January, 1983, showing him the autopsy photographs, which he denied showed the back of the head, as he saw it; and then returned in 1989, with a professional film crew, and did the interview again, on camera.

I do not understand how today, people can return to these accounts and reasonably claim that this or that doctor did not see what he said he did.

The notion that this is what the President's head looked like, at Bethesda, is --as far as I'm concerned--not just unlikely. Its simply absurd.

DSL
5/6/13; 4:30 PM PDT
Los Angeles, California

Offline David Von Pein

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2398
    • THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY: A LONE-GUNMAN VIEWPOINT
Re: ED Forum falling apart!
« Reply #143 on: May 07, 2013, 12:53:59 AM »
Quote from: David Lifton
I do not understand how today, people can return to these accounts and reasonably claim that this or that doctor did not see what he said he did.

The notion that this is what the President's head looked like, at Bethesda, is--as far as I'm concerned--not just unlikely. It's simply absurd.

And yet we have THREE different forms of photographic proof that indicate the Parkland doctors were wrong --

1.) The autopsy photographs.
2.) The autopsy X-rays.
3.) The Zapruder Film.

Am I really supposed to believe that ALL of the above items are fakes, David, including You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login? And Mr. Zapruder's movie and camera, keep in mind, are items that were never out of Mr. Zapruder's sight from the time he filmed the assassination to the time the film was developed and processed. So is Abe Z. a part of a plot too? He'd almost HAVE to be in order to even BEGIN to believe that his film is a fake.

Mr. Lifton,

Can you tell us what credentials you possess in photo analysis and photo authentication that would make you determine that the two pictures below are fakes and frauds (even though the HSCA determined the exact opposite on page 41 of HSCA Volume 7)?:





Also:

Mr. Lifton, can I get you to agree that if even one of the above photographic items is NOT a fake and a fraud, then President Kennedy definitely did NOT have a great-big hole in the back (occipital) area of his head?

Thank you.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2013, 01:19:02 AM
by David Von Pein
»

Offline John Mytton

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10368
Re: ED Forum falling apart!
« Reply #144 on: May 07, 2013, 12:59:26 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
David L.,

And yet we have THREE different forms of photographic proof that indicate the Parkland doctors were wrong --

1.) The autopsy photographs.
2.) The autopsy X-rays.
3.) The Zapruder Film.

I'm supposed to believe thaty ALL of the above items are fakes, David? Including You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login--which is a movie that was never out of Mr. Zapruder's sight from the time he filmed the assassination to the time it was developed and processed?

Mr. Lifton,

Can you tell what creditials you possess in photo analysis that would make you determine that the two pictures below are fakes and frauds (even though the HSCA determined the exact opposite on page 41 of HSCA Volume 7)?:





Also:

Mr. Lifton, can I get you to agree that if even one of the above photographic items is NOT a fake and a fraud, then President Kennedy definitely did NOT have a great-big hole in the back (occipital) area of his head?

Thank you.




Faking these pairs of stereoscopic photos in 2013 would require a decent amount of computer skill, in 1963 forget it!






JohnM

Offline Herbert Blenner

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7091
    • Peeking into the World of H. D. Blenner
Re: ED Forum falling apart!
« Reply #145 on: May 07, 2013, 01:13:27 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote from: David Lifton
I do not understand how today, people can return to these accounts and reasonably claim that this or that doctor did not see what he said he did.

The notion that this is what the President's head looked like, at Bethesda, is --as far as I'm concerned--not just unlikely. Its simply absurd.

And yet we have THREE different forms of photographic proof that indicate the Parkland doctors were wrong --

1.) The autopsy photographs.
2.) The autopsy X-rays.
3.) The Zapruder Film.

I'm supposed to believe thaty ALL of the above items are fakes, David, including You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login? And Mr. Zapruder's movie and camera, keep in mind, are items that were never out of Mr. Zapruder's sight from the time he filmed the assassination to the time the film was developed and processed. So is Abe Z. a part of a plot too? He'd almost HAVE to be in order to BEGIN to believe that his film is a fake.

Mr. Lifton,

Can you tell what creditials you possess in photo analysis that would make you determine that the two pictures below are fakes and frauds (even though the HSCA determined the exact opposite on page 41 of HSCA Volume 7)?:





Also:

Mr. Lifton, can I get you to agree that if even one of the above photographic items is NOT a fake and a fraud, then President Kennedy definitely did NOT have a great-big hole in the back (occipital) area of his head?

Thank you.


You have just posted a photograph and an x-ray which portend that Commander Humes was wrong when he described the large defect of the head.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

“Missile Wounds:
1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.”

Next time, you should only post the photographs and x-rays that are labeled as were when received from Parkland.

Herbert

« Last Edit: May 07, 2013, 01:31:00 AM
by Herbert Blenner
»

Offline Jerry Organ

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4809
Re: ED Forum falling apart!
« Reply #146 on: May 07, 2013, 04:57:12 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The description by the Clark Panel of the 6 mm by 15 mm elliptical and longitudinal scalp wound at four inches above the hairline is a sham.  A bullet on the course inferred by the location, shape and dimensions of this wound would have exited to the rear of the apex of the head.

Herbert




Herbert, in the topmost drawing above, a arrow represents the undeflected trajectory slope from the Sniper's Nest to the "cowlick" inshoot at Z312 (the large diagrams are left-lateral profile views related to the President's head orientation in the Z312 inset, upper left). You can see where the arrow "exits". This accounts for the gaping head wound being on the top-right of the cranium. You can also see that the Sniper's Nest bullet entered the "cowlick" area on a tangent and possibly skidded a fraction, accounting for the elongated missile entry.

You can't reliably project backward using the 6 x 15 dimensions alone as there are too many variables (ie: skull curvature, bullet skid, head moved forward as bullet drills, etc.). You can use the 6 x 15 method if, say, a bullet is fired into something flat and stable.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Its absurd to believe that Humes "mislocated" the wound by four inches. He reported what he saw on the night of 11/22/63 --and that's where the FBI put the white patch on the back of the agent's head during the reconstruction. (Remember that little white patch at the bottom of the back of the head, during the FBI reconstructions?) Where do you think that location came from?

And yet: The X-rays and photos show something different.

But Humes he didn't back down. Here's what he said, under oath, when he testified before the HSCA in September, 1978:

QUOTE:

I state now {that} those measurements we recorded then were accurate to the best of our ability to discern what we had before our eyes.  (I HSCA 327)

I think your casual statement --dismissing what this man said--is  thoroughly incorrect; further, that you do a disservice to history when you attempt to "make excuses" for this most serious situation: Humes testified accurately and honestly as to what he saw.  He re-emphasized that point when, under oath, and on national TV, he made the statement I quoted above.

The physical evidence shows something entirely different, and that's the problem (and this is all laid out in Chapter 20 of Best Evidence)..

The focus should be on how this physical evidence was created--not coming up with excuses to casually dismiss the critically important account of this very important testimony.

He was there Jerry. You were not.

DSL
5/6/13; 1:10 PM PDT
Los Angeles, California


David, rather than have the autopsy results verified by a panel, the Warren Commission respectfully but naively accepted them. They then relied on Humes' incorrect EOP position for the reconstruction and ballistics studies. This of course only compounded the original error.

I'm hardly "dismissing" what happened in the Bethesda morgue if I have Finck on record saying Humes' palpation method was more reliable than any photograph.

Humes never deflected the scalp back to bare the EOP. This involves a lot of cutting of underlying muscles and tendons, and is quite involved. Humes would have shot a picture of the bare EOP and adjacent inshoot if he had laid bare the skull to expose the EOP. We know from Finck that palpation was used to locate the "bump" Humes mistook for the EOP. No one at the autopsy would have questioned Humes on the matter and they seemed pretty reluctant to question Humes afterward. In fact, the HSCA Medical Evidence Panel treated Hume and Boswell rather lightly (in comparison with Baden's treatment of Humes at the Hearings). So Humes and Boswell have been getting a free ride.

And yet they were totally incompetent in the eyes of the critics in the Sixties (apparently Kennedy's autopsy was less than they would give a "Bowery bum"). That was before the critics discovered a way to make their findings work on behalf of their pet theories. Then the two (Humes and Boswell) became competent again.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2013, 07:18:25 PM
by Jerry Organ
»