Jump to content


Spartacus

Cover-Up of the Medical Evidence


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#31 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11,633 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 07 June 2006 - 04:19 AM

Shanklin was riding his agents very hard. Making mistakes would not be favourable. If there had been confusion other documents would exist clarifying. Likely those are the documents we would be seeing.We're not.

On the other hand, in looking for contemporary armed forces use of the words, missile, fragment, bullet and particles appear somewhat interchangeable.

http://history.amedd.../chapter3.1.htm

"There remains, as the correct explanation of the explosive cavity, what early workers called the accelerated particle theory. This view regards the energy of the bullet as being transferred to the soft tissue in front and to each side, thus imparting momentum to these tissue particles, so that they rapidly move away from the bullet path, thus acting like "secondary missiles." Once set in motion, the "inertia of the fluid particles" continues its motion, and a large space or cavity is left behind. As Stevenson puts it, the bullet causes damage not only by crushing and attrition of tissue directly but also indirectly by the fluids moving away from its path........ballistics. Callender and French12 and Callender13 used Plasticine as a model for tissues and studied especially the yaw of bullets and the relation of wound damage to the power delivered. They introduced more modern methods of measuring velocities and also obtained records of the pressure changes during the passage of a bullet through Plasticine.
Black, Burns, and Zuckerman14 have described the enormous damage done by minute fragments of metal from bombbursts. These fragments move with velocities far higher than those of ordinary rifle bullets. Using the spark shadowgraph method and steel spheres, weighing only 53 mg., they were able to imitate the destructive effect of bomb splinters and obtained spark shadow outlines of rabbit legs during passage of the missile. These shadowgrams indicated a large swelling due to the cavity within."

#32 Pat Speer

Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,484 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 June 2006 - 06:36 AM

John, you're absolutely right. In wound ballistics, the word "missile" is used quite frequently in place of "fragment" or "projectile." As far as Belmont saying the bullet was behind the ear, I did a lot of thinking on this issue a few years back and came to the decision it was just typical FBI sloppiness. The large fragment seen on the x-rays and recovered at the autopsy was behind Kennedy's EYE, not EAR. In the heat of the investigation, many mistakes were made. Read any FBI memo of the first few weeks and one will find a number of mistakes. A WEEK after the assassination Hoover told LBJ that if Connally hadn't turned he wouldn't have been hit, implying the second shot came from the front and was intended for Kennedy. There were simply too many facts for the Feebies to absorb all at once. Consequently, they got a lot wrong.

As far as the KGB, the KGB Assassination Files DVD demonstrates that the KGB thought Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy. They simply didn't think Oswald was capable of pulling it off on his own.

#33 John Hunt

John Hunt

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts

Posted 07 June 2006 - 11:05 PM

2. The one-page FBI HQ document dated November 22, 1963 is a potential "smoking gun" document which may indicate another major aspect of the medical coverup in the assassination. In the first paragraph, it mentions a "bullet lodged behind the President's ear" which the FBI was planning on obtaining. You will note that this was written while the autopsy was ongoing;


Doug and all,

A color scan I made of that document is featured in my essay, The Mystery of the 7:30 Bullet, which can be found here:

http://www.jfklancer...nt/mystery.html




John Hunt

#34 Ron Ecker

Ron Ecker

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,790 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 June 2006 - 08:55 PM

To believe that FBI agents would allow themselves to sign that document if it did not specifically state what item(s) had been transferred is absurd.

Sure, they can lay the blame on an unidentified clerk, as if that really proves that no "missile" had been recovered that night.


They didn't blame the clerk. Sibert states in the Law book that the receipt "was made by the navy and we received it from them. A navy corpsman typed it up" (p. 216). Sibert told the ARRB, "This receipt was prepared by Navy personnel. I think a Navy corpsman typed it up. And this terminology is U.S. Navy about 'missile.' Now, had I been preparing or making out a receipt and giving it to them, I would have said 'fragments' there" (Sibert deposition, pp. 89-90).

That's the best explanation for why the FBI agents signed it: the Navy wrote it using its terminology. This also explains why the navy corpsman, Chief Petty Officer Chester H. Boyers, typed it that way. Boyers stated in a HSCA affidavit that the receipt was "in error" about a missile. He didn't say why he typed it that way anyhow, but the reason is obvious: a naval superior wrote it and gave it to him to type. Boyers didn't tell his superior that he was "in error."

Since the receipt was to be sent to Capt. Stover, it would be my guess is that Capt. Stover is the person who wrote it and gave it to Boyers to type.

Boyers BTW was also involved (apparently innocently) in the two-brain escapade that has been exposed by Doug Horne. As Doug knows, Boyers told the HSCA that he prepared tissue slides of the brain on December 2 (the second brain exam).

#35 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11,633 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 12 June 2006 - 02:11 AM

I raised the issue re missile definition not because I don't want it to be a bullet, and the precise wording is of the intent to recover 'a bullet' and not a suspected bullet... and of course a bullet would also be called a missile. I was just curious to see what answers would be to what seems to me an obvious objection that would have to be dealt with sooner or later. So why not now.
Where would this bullet be fired from in order for it to be behind the ear. And where IS behind the ear. There are some drastic 'head plane' changes happening on the area of the head that could be called 'behind the ear'. And the internal bone structure of the skull is changing a lot in that area as well, so there could be a lot of clues about trajectory there if looked at correctly.

#36 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Admin

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 15,681 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 July 2006 - 05:05 PM

Associated Press, JFK Documents Raise Questions (9th November, 1998 )

Three military pathologists agree they conducted an autopsy of Kennedy's entire body at Bethesda immediately after it was flown back from Dallas. But the doctors offer conflicting recollections about the timing of a subsequent brain exam.

Two doctors, J. Thornton Boswell and James Humes, told the review board that the brain exam occurred two or three days after Kennedy's death. Initially, Humes told the Warren Commission that he, Boswell and a third pathologist, Dr. Pierre Finck, were present when the brain was examined. But when he testified to the review board in 1996, Humes did not list Finck among those present. Boswell maintains Finck was not there.

On the other hand, Finck says the brain exam did not occur until much later. In a memo he wrote to his commanding officer 14 months after Kennedy was assassinated, Finck said Humes did not call him until Nov. 29, 1963 - seven days after Kennedy's death - to say it was time to examine the brain. In the memo, Finck said all three pathologists examined the brain together and that "color and black-and-white photographs are taken by the U.S. Navy photographer."

The conflicting testimony caused Douglas Horne, chief analyst for military records, to conclude in a 32-page memo that two separate brain exams may have been conducted, "contrary to the official record as it has been presented to the American people."

"If true, Dr. Finck's account of a brain exam separate and distinct from the first one would mean that Drs. Humes and Boswell were present at two different brain exams," he writes.

Humes was ill and could not be interviewed. In a telephone interview, Boswell reiterated that the brain was examined at the initial autopsy of the body and only once more at a separate brain exam a few day later.

"I doubt very much that we would have called him (Finck) back over for that," Boswell said.

Boswell added that the only photos of the brain were taken at the autopsy.

This conflicts with testimony the board obtained from Navy photographer John Stringer, who said he took pictures of the brain two or three days after the autopsy. Stringer also testified that official photos of the brain preserved at the archives do not match those he remembers taking. He cites discrepancies in the angles from which they were shot and the type of film used.

In addition, former FBI Agent Francis O'Neill Jr., who watched doctors remove Kennedy's brain the night he died, told the review board that the archives' photos do not resemble what he saw. "I did not recall it (the brain) being that large," O'Neill said.

Throughout the years, doctors who treated Kennedy in Dallas said his head wound was about the size of a large egg at the back of the head, behind his right ear. The Dallas doctors told reporters then that they believed Kennedy was shot from the front -- a belief that conflicted with the Warren Commission's later conclusion of a single shooter firing from behind.

Humes, chief pathologist for the autopsy at Bethesda, agreed there was a wound to the right rear of Kennedy's head, but he told the board that it was a small entry wound, not an egg-sized exit wound. In contrast to observations in Dallas, Humes said there also was massive damage to the top of Kennedy's skull and right side forward of the ear.

#37 Karl Kinaski

Karl Kinaski

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 611 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austria

Posted 16 July 2008 - 09:31 AM

Doug Horne wrote:

-There are 3 possible reasons why the back of the head appears intact in the autopsy photos (of course, it was not intact and the photos depict an intentionally “false picture” of what happened):

-photographic forgery (to which I do not subscribe);

-gross manipulation of the scalp (from elsewhere on the head) by the doctors, so as to fool the camera; or

-a partial reconstruction of the back of the head by Mr. Stroble, the Gawler’s funeral home technician, a the direction of the pathologists, so as to fool the camera.

I tend toward suspecting the third option above.


I agree...put the reason for reconstructing the head by Mr. Stroble, was IMO another one: Back in 1963 it was not unusual to show an open coffin to the public.
According to a Schlesinger jr interview, on Saturday morning
(23.11.1963)Jackie K sent Robert McNamara and Schlesinger jr.(who were
with her) to the
coffin (which just arrived at the Withe house) to have a close look at
her dead husband, because she wanted to know, if it was possible to show an
open coffin to those who wanted to pay their last respect to JFK.
McNamara and Schlesinger did so, and they said to Jackie, that her husbands face looked
rather unnatural and waxy, and the widow decided to keep the coffin
closed.

#38 William Kelly

William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,793 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 July 2008 - 03:39 AM

Doug Horne wrote:

-There are 3 possible reasons why the back of the head appears intact in the autopsy photos (of course, it was not intact and the photos depict an intentionally "false picture" of what happened):

-photographic forgery (to which I do not subscribe);

-gross manipulation of the scalp (from elsewhere on the head) by the doctors, so as to fool the camera; or

-a partial reconstruction of the back of the head by Mr. Stroble, the Gawler's funeral home technician, a the direction of the pathologists, so as to fool the camera.

I tend toward suspecting the third option above.


I agree...put the reason for reconstructing the head by Mr. Stroble, was IMO another one: Back in 1963 it was not unusual to show an open coffin to the public.
According to a Schlesinger jr interview, on Saturday morning
(23.11.1963)Jackie K sent Robert McNamara and Schlesinger jr.(who were
with her) to the
coffin (which just arrived at the Withe house) to have a close look at
her dead husband, because she wanted to know, if it was possible to show an
open coffin to those who wanted to pay their last respect to JFK.
McNamara and Schlesinger did so, and they said to Jackie, that her husbands face looked
rather unnatural and waxy, and the widow decided to keep the coffin
closed.




Thanks for bringing this up again Karl, maybe we can persuade Doug to come back and answer some questions.

I think Doug Horne would be one of the most important witnesses before the Congressional Oversight Hearings on the JFK Act, if they ever happen, and I hope he's found a publisher for his book.

BK

#39 William Kelly

William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,793 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 November 2009 - 02:27 AM

I believe that Doug Horne’s presentation includes some of the most important evidence that has come out on the case in recent years. As someone has said, it should be headline news, but it isn’t. I have send this presentation to all the journalists I know. I hope other members will do the same.

The presentation raises important questions. Who else knows about alteration of the head wounds? Who was the photographer who took the second batch of pictures? Was it William Pitzer and could that experience be linked with his death? As Allan Eaglesham has pointed out: “He (Pitzer) is reported to have been in uniform on the afternoon of his death. An important meeting? A meeting linked with transfer of JFK-autopsy-related materials to the National Archives early the following week?”



#40 Andrej Stancak

Andrej Stancak

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 120 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 March 2016 - 10:32 AM

1500 g. This was the weight of President Kennedy’s brain during the pathological examination made at the Bethesda Naval Hospital on December 6, 1963 [1]. The brain weight figure allows to infer on the weight of President’s brain at the time of autopsy. Unfortunately, the Bethesda pathologists did not weigh President’s brain during the autopsy in spite of this procedure being a routine part of every autopsy [2].

   A three week formalin fixation has been shown to increase the brain weight by 50 g on average [3]. More recent data suggest variable percent increases in brain weights due to the formalin fixation with an average weight increase of 8.8% over the period of few weeks [4]. If we apply the swelling factor of 8.8%, the estimated weight of President Kennedy’s brain at the time of autopsy was 1373 g.

   This figure appears to be too large relative to the amount of damage to the President Kennedy’s brain. The damage to the right hemisphere and the associated loss of brain tissue has been estimated by Mr. David Lifton to be as much as 70% in the right hemisphere [5]. If a normal brain would suffer such loss of tissue, it could not weigh 1373 g. To provide some approximation of the weight of intact and injured Kennedy’s brain, normative data obtained in large cohorts of people can be used. The study by Debakan et al. (1978) [6] analysed the post-mortem brain weights in 2773 males and 1963 females in 23 age categories. The mean weight of a male brain in the age range of 40-50 years was 1430 g (standard deviation 20 g). As President Kennedy was tall (72.5 inches, 184 cm), and since brain weight correlates with body height and weight [6], it is reasonable to estimate that the weight of Kennedy’s brain would be in the upper range of the normal distribution of brain weights in his age category. The upper weight value corresponding to the top 5% brain weights for males aged 40-50 years, estimated using the Z-scores method, would be 1496.2 g (rounded to 1496 g). If Kennedy’s brain sustained a loss of 70% of brain tissue in one hemisphere [5], his brain at the time of autopsy weighed only 972 g. However, even if we accept a smaller than 70% loss of brain tissue of 50% in one hemisphere, the brain weight at the time of autopsy would be only 1122 g. After correcting these brain weight estimates for swelling due to immersing the brain into a formalin solution, Kennedy’s brain during the pathological examination on December 6 was expected to weigh 1058 g or 1221 g for a 70% and 50% loss of tissue in one hemisphere, respectively.

These calculations suggest that the brain examined on December 6, 1963 was different from the brain removed from President Kennedy’s skull during the autopsy on November 22, 1963. Further, this finding sheds a new light on the omission to weigh the brain during the autopsy [2]. The following two explanations need to be considered:

  1. The pathologists were stressed out and confused during the autopsy itself and forgot to measure the brain weight. This would be an unlikely but honest error.
  1. The pathologists intentionally skipped weighing the brain during the autopsy either to conceal the real loss of brain tissue, and/or to be able to use a different brain in further examinations. The correct brain weight data at the time of autopsy might have prevented the use of a different brain as the other brain would have been weighed during the follow-up pathological examination of the fixated brain, and the discrepancy in the autopsy and post-autopsy weights would be evident. If this explanation is correct, it is also conceivable that the generals and some unknown civilians present in the autopsy room [5] couched or ordered Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell not to weigh the brain.

 As my calculations suggest that other than President Kennedy's brain was examined on December 6, I am inclined to accept the latter explanation.

The calculations and the conclusion accord a previous note by Mr. Doug Horne (2006, post 3 in this thread) that the weight of 1500 g would be too large

for a brain showing an extensive tissue loss [7].

 

 

[1] Appendix IX. Commission Exhibit 391. Supplementary report of autopsy number A63-272. https://www.archives...appendix-09.pdf

[2] During his deposition for the ARRB, the interviewers asked Dr. Humes about the lack of the weight figure in the autopsy form. Dr. Humes had a difficult time to explain (ARRB deposition 1996, pp. 74-75):

  1. I'd like to draw your attention to a few items on the first page of this document. Right next to the marking for brain, there's no entry of a weight there. Do you see that on the document?
    A. Yes, I see that it's blank, yeah.
    Q. Why is there no weight for the brain there?
    A. I don't know. I don't really--can't really recall why.
    Q. Was the fresh brain weighed?
    A. I don't recall. I don't recall. It's as simple as that.
    Q. Would it be standard practice for a gunshot wound in the head to have the brain weighed?
    A. Yeah, we weigh it with gunshot wound or no. Normally we weigh the brain when we remove it. I can't recall why--I don't know, one, whether it was weighed or not, or, two, why it doesn't show here. I have no explanation for that

[3] Frýdl V, Koch R, Závodská H. The effect of formalin fixation on several properties of the brain. Zentralbl. Allg. Pathol. 135:649-55 (1989)

[4] Itabashi, H.H., Andrews, J.M., Tomiyasu, U., Erlich, S.S., Sathyavagiswaran, L. Forensic Pathology: A Practical Review of the Fundamentals. Academic Press & Elsevier, 2007, p. 22.

[5] Lifton, D. Best Evidence. Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Carroll & Graf Publishers, Inc., New York, Fourth Edition, 1989, pp. 470-472.

[6] Debakan, A.S., Sadowsky, D. Changes of brain weights during the span of human life: relation of brain weights to body heights and body heights. Ann. Neurol., 4: 345-356, 1978.

[7] Spartacus Educational Forum, thread: Cover-up of medical evidence. Post by Doug Horne, dated May 16, 2006, No. 3. http://educationforu...wtopic=6849&hl=


Edited by Andrej Stancak, 05 March 2016 - 10:33 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users