Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Autopsy proves SBT impossible  (Read 57521 times)

Online Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2614
Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
« Reply #40 on: April 12, 2018, 05:15:36 PM »
Advertisement
Here you go ray:




       The JFK Autopsy Photo clearly shows a wound in JFK's BACK. The Autopsy Face Sheet clearly displays a wound in JFK's BACK. Humes placed his finger inside a wound on JFK's BACK.  The above illustration is pure Fiction.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
« Reply #40 on: April 12, 2018, 05:15:36 PM »


Offline Ray Mitcham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 994
Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
« Reply #41 on: April 12, 2018, 07:05:03 PM »
Ok, so they didn't measure themselves. Who did the measuring and what method and tools did they use to come up with the 45/60 degree figure?

Unfortunately, Tim, like you, I wasn't present at the autopsy, so I can't answer your question. However Sibert and O'Neill were and they reported what they heard. Or, because what they said doesn't agree with your bible, the Warren Report, maybe you think the FBI agents were just mistaken or lying,

Offline Matt Grantham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 902
Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
« Reply #42 on: April 12, 2018, 07:47:18 PM »
 Have to add Silbert and O'Neil to WC's strange list of those not called before it

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
« Reply #42 on: April 12, 2018, 07:47:18 PM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
« Reply #43 on: April 12, 2018, 08:56:32 PM »
Did Sibert and O'Neill measure a downward angle o 45/60 degrees? If so, how did they manage to do it?

Did agent Bookhout measure Linnie Mae Randle's paper bag?

Offline Matt Grantham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 902
Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
« Reply #44 on: April 12, 2018, 09:01:17 PM »
Ok, so they didn't measure themselves. Who did the measuring and what method and tools did they use to come up with the 45/60 degree figure?

 Since Humes claimed to have stick his finger in the wound I assume it was an estimate It is a wide range which seems like a reasonable way to estimate

Not to mention that is of secondary importance to the findings of the location of the wound on the body and the wound's depth
« Last Edit: April 12, 2018, 09:09:44 PM by Matt Grantham »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
« Reply #44 on: April 12, 2018, 09:01:17 PM »


Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1824
Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
« Reply #45 on: April 12, 2018, 09:56:10 PM »
Unfortunately, Tim, like you, I wasn't present at the autopsy, so I can't answer your question. However Sibert and O'Neill were and they reported what they heard. Or, because what they said doesn't agree with your bible, the Warren Report, maybe you think the FBI agents were just mistaken or lying,

Ray, The Warren Report is not my Bible. I rarely refer to the Report itself. I do accept the findings of the report written by the Pathologists who did a forensic examination on Kennedy's body. I also accept the authenticity of the autopsy photos and x-rays. Humes was asked about the 45 to 60 degrees mentioned in the Sibert/O'Neill report. He said that he had just guestimated.

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1824
Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
« Reply #46 on: April 12, 2018, 09:57:08 PM »
Have to add Silbert and O'Neil to WC's strange list of those not called before it

Why should Sibert and O'Neill have been called before the WC? Should everyone who observed the autopsy have been called before the Commission?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
« Reply #46 on: April 12, 2018, 09:57:08 PM »


Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1824
Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
« Reply #47 on: April 12, 2018, 09:58:09 PM »
Since Humes claimed to have stick his finger in the wound I assume it was an estimate It is a wide range which seems like a reasonable way to estimate

Not to mention that is of secondary importance to the findings of the location of the wound on the body and the wound's depth

Matt, 

Did Humes claim that he stuck a finger in the wound? I know that he said that he attempted to probe the wound with his finger but I doubt that he said that the finger went into the wound to any depth. The wound hole was 4 mm by 7 mm in size. My smallest finger is 13 mm wide at the first knuckle. I doubt that Humes' digits were smaller than mine.