Incisions for Chest Tubes: The "Cut Downs" at Parkland

[Thomas H. Purvis]

BUMP

1. Failure to properly research subject matter:

Prior to launching their "ship of fools", many persons fail to adequately research the subject matter of their perceived destination.

"Please document your "original work" that referenced Warren Commission and/or ARRB testimony in which "subcutaneous" appears in relation to the chest tubes, and where "emphysema" appears at all."

"Time's up, Purvis."

Personally, I was not aware that there was any time limit imposed onto the search for knowledge.

"The first Dallas meeting of Dealey Plaza UK was held on Sunday, November 24, 1996 at the Dallas Grand Hotel. At 1:30 pm, Chairman Richard Livingstone called the meeting to order, adding that he hopes to have further meetings in Dallas.

Four speakers addressed the meeting. Each had spoken at the JFK-Lancer conference in the preceding days, but selected a different topic for this day.

[George Michael] Evica cited the discrepancy in the accounts of the chest tube incisions made in Dallas. According to Evica, the autopsy personnel did not notice the incisions or disruption to the interior chest wall caused by the trocars to assist in the introduction of the tubes. He determined that four possibilities for the inconsistencies exist:

1. The Dallas doctors lied..."which is unlikely."

2. The Dallas doctors introduced superficial incisions after death to make it appear as though they had implemented the chest drainage tubes..."which is unlikely."

3. The autopsy doctors lied.

4. Both the Dallas and Bethesda doctors were truthful, indicating the presence of a second body at the autopsy."

Well! 1996 to present!

Were I to set a "time limit", then I would suppose that the "ship of fools" has been sailing around lost for a considerable length of time, when in fact the answer to which way to go was quite easy to be found by anyone who had even bothered to read.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0029a.htm

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0029b.htm

"Telephone communication with Dr. Perry on Nov. 23, 1963, developes the following information"

"Incisions were made in the upper anterior chest wall bilaterally to combat possible sub-cutaneous emphysema".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It would appear that someone did not do their "reading assignment" prior to insertion of foot into mouth, and still did not do it even after having been informed of the subject matter.

--------------------

Now! Irrelevant as to whether or not JFK did or did not suffer from subcutaneous emphysema as a result of some "unknown" reason, the fact remains that this condition, as indicated, represents an ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF INFORMATION, which our learned researchers not only did not find, but also completely ignored.

Of course, there is always the "don't confuse me with the facts" syndrome .

"Instead of citing Humes' second set of handwritten notes in which the "subcutaneous emphysema" is nothing more than hearsy concerning what Perry allegedly said on the phone, let's look at the testimony."

Which frequently encompasses such items as "It does not exist", as well as "If it does exist, then it is hearsay".

2. Faillure to either understand or research the subject matter, even when pointed out to the individual.

"Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of that evidence.

Generally speaking, it merely means that one does not understand the evidence."

(Tom Purvis)

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0036a.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0029b.htm

"Incisions were made in the upper anterior chest wall bilaterally in order to combat possible sub-cutaneous emphysema"

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerende...amp;pageindex=2

The use of subcutaneous drains to manage subcutaneous emphysema.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then, there is always the potentially related symptom of:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0028a.htm

"Bloody air in upper mediastinum"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediastinum

Which also happens to be referred to as "air in the chest"

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/arrbpark.htm

DR. PETERS: Dr. Perry said, I think there may be some air in the chest. Let's put in chest tubes, and I remember cutting President Kennedy's chest on the right side

DR. PERRY:There was hair [sic = "air"] in the mediastinum,

[Charles Drago]

Tell it to the other Charlie.

I'm sure your material would positively kill them.

Oops.

Been there, done that.

[Ron Ecker]

Can anyone summarize briefly what has been learned or may be surmised from this confusing thread? Based on the evidence, as presented here in rather scatter-shot fashion, should we conclude that

1. The tubes were inserted, and Humes didn't know what he was talking about (which is plausible) when he said that they weren't, or

2. Humes was correct, and the Parkland doctors, though intending to insert tubes, don't really know if they actually did, or

3. Two different bodies were used, with and without the incisions.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Can anyone summarize briefly what has been learned or may be surmised from this confusing thread? Based on the evidence, as presented here in rather scatter-shot fashion, should we conclude that

1. The tubes were inserted, and Humes didn't know what he was talking about (which is plausible) when he said that they weren't, or

2. Humes was correct, and the Parkland doctors, though intending to insert tubes, don't really know if they actually did, or

3. Two different bodies were used, with and without the incisions.

1. Someone, who has quite obviously not taken that much time and effort in examination of the medical condition of JFK, has proposed some giant conspiracy which encompassed some unknown purpose of either shallow insertion of chest tubes into JFK at Parkland to "cover" for some covert assurance of death, or else some other unknown conspiracy theory in which Dr. Humes saw fit to lie about the facts of the autopsy.

2. "Chest Tubes" are inserted for basically one of three reasons:

A. Inserted into the subcutaneous tissues just under the skin in order to release the gas buildup in these tissues, which is referred to as subcutaneous emphysema.

B. Inserted into the Pleural space (that space between the parietal pleura and the visceral pluera) to relieve/release gas buildup within the plueral space as a result of a pneumothorax which has allowed the air/gas buildup to escape the lung and fill the space between the parietal and visceral pleura.

C. Inserted directly into the lung and utilized to re-enflate a collapsed lung.

Note: Chest tubes can also be inserted to facilitate the drainage of fluid/liquid buildup.

Number# 1. above does not require invasive surgery into the plueral cavity, and since the insertion of any drain terminates within the subcutaneous tissues, there is no puncture/penetration of the parietal pleura.

The autopsy surgeons reported no damage/puncture/penetration of the parietal pleura.

The Parkland Medical records as well as Dr.'s reference "chest tubes" having been inserted into JFK.

Dr. Humes handwritten notes reference discussion with Dr. Perry, in that the bilateral chest incisions (which is where the chest tubes were inserted) were done so to combat subcutaneous emphysema.

Someone who has not done their medical homework, did not bother to read Dr. Humes notes, and was not aware that chest tubes are inserted for such conditions, has gone far out on a limb again due to the simple fact that they have not taken the time and effort to study and evaluate ALL of the evidence, and have jumped to conclusions without having evaluated this evidence.

Subcutaneous emphysema as well as mediastinal emphysema was immediately created in JFK the moment that the positive pressure respiratory efforts began.

This emphysema was a result of the torn trachea which allowed this positive pressure oxygen to escape the pulmonary system and escape into the neck tissues and thorax.

http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?mediastinal+emphysema

mediastinal emphysema

Presence of air in the mediastinal tissues due to leakage of air from the tracheobronchial tree, usually as a result of trauma.

This is the first indication that subcutaneous emphysema may be present, as it is the first form of emphysema to occur as a resultj of this invasive air having entered into the mediastinum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediastinum

Dr. Perry noted this as being "bloody air in upper mediastinum" as noted by Dr. Humes notes of his telephone conversation with Dr. Perry.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0028a.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/perry_m1.htm

Dr. PERRY- I noticed there was free air and blood in the right mediastinum

Mr. SPECTER - Now, you described a condition in the right mediastinum. Would you elaborate on what your views were of the condition at the time you were rendering this treatment?

Dr. PERRY - The condition of this area?

Mr. SPECTER - Yes, sir.

Dr. PERRY - There was both blood, free blood and air in the right superior mediastinum. That is the space that is located between the lungs and the heart at that level.

Now!

Do not get the idea that there is no conflict between the various testimonies of those of the Parkland ER and the notes which Dr. Humes wrote, and the autopsy results, as there certainly is conflict.

Just that one must ultimately decide for themselves as to exactly what these conflicts may represent.

[Ron Ecker]

Thomas,

Thanks for your help. Unfortunately to me this issue is still about as clear as mud, so I can't, to paraphrase, "decide for myself." There is too much here that needs to be pulled together in some clear organized fashion, i.e. in an article. One gets the impression that all these doctors say one thing and then another and really don't know what happened themselves. To go back to the original post of this thread, I wish that Evica's essay on this subject was available somewhere online. Failing that, I wish someone would write the aforementioned article. (I'm afraid I'm not the person to try it.)

[Charles Drago]

1. Someone, who has quite obviously not taken that much time and effort in examination of the medical condition of JFK ...

To Purvis, the Moderators, and all Readers of the Forum:

Until and unless the author of the comment quoted above -- Thomas Purvis -- is prepared to document his claim that George Michael Evica, whose work is the subject of this thread, "has not taken that much time and effort" in examining JFK's medical condition, then I have no choice but to post a warning to all stakeholders in this Forum that Purvis is either a fool or worse.

The "worse" would be an agent of the forces who killed JFK.

Purvis has not the slightest factual basis whatsoever on which to build his slander of a researcher whose contributions to the searches for truth and justice for JFK are as unsurpassed in terms of their importance as they are universally recognized and honored.

Purvis is the worst kind of provocateur: one who will slash and burn without concern for the truth. He is devoid of personal honor. He is, in a word, the enemy.

But prove me wrong, Purvis, and I'll publicly apologize to you and the entire Forum. Cite chapter and verse on the breadth and depth of Evica's research on the medical evidence. Show us that you have read and understood the book length studies And We are All Mortal and A Certain Arrogance, that you have read and understood the 40-plus JFK-related papers published by Evica over his professional lifetime, that you have demonstrated even a pitiful approximation of Evica's grasp of detail and power to reason.

Show us, Purvis. And I'll apologize.

But you can't, can you?

You are the laughing stock of this Forum, Purvis.

And I reserve my heartiest laughter for when I think about how, late at night, the demons come to reward you for your perfidy.

Charles Drago

[Mark Stapleton]

1. Someone, who has quite obviously not taken that much time and effort in examination of the medical condition of JFK ...

To Purvis, the Moderators, and all Readers of the Forum:

Until and unless the author of the comment quoted above -- Thomas Purvis -- is prepared to document his claim that George Michael Evica, whose work is the subject of this thread, "has not taken that much time and effort" in examining JFK's medical condition, then I have no choice but to post a warning to all stakeholders in this Forum that Purvis is either a fool or worse.

The "worse" would be an agent of the forces who killed JFK.

Purvis has not the slightest factual basis whatsoever on which to build his slander of a researcher whose contributions to the searches for truth and justice for JFK are as unsurpassed in terms of their importance as they are universally recognized and honored.

Purvis is the worst kind of provocateur: one who will slash and burn without concern for the truth. He is devoid of personal honor. He is, in a word, the enemy.

But prove me wrong, Purvis, and I'll publicly apologize to you and the entire Forum. Cite chapter and verse on the breadth and depth of Evica's research on the medical evidence. Show us that you have read and understood the book length studies And We are All Mortal and A Certain Arrogance, that you have read and understood the 40-plus JFK-related papers published by Evica over his professional lifetime, that you have demonstrated even a pitiful approximation of Evica's grasp of detail and power to reason.

Show us, Purvis. And I'll apologize.

But you can't, can you?

You are the laughing stock of this Forum, Purvis.

And I reserve my heartiest laughter for when I think about how, late at night, the demons come to reward you for your perfidy.

Charles Drago

I agree, Charles. Tom Purvis regularly hands out haughty insults to those who hold a different view. He gets a good run from the mods.

Tom's posts are confusing. Tom thinks LHO killed JFK (correct me if I am wrong) and the WC was a coverup. That doesn't make sense. Tom also floods threads with irrelevant material.

Tom's a xxxxx.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

1. Someone, who has quite obviously not taken that much time and effort in examination of the medical condition of JFK ...

To Purvis, the Moderators, and all Readers of the Forum:

Until and unless the author of the comment quoted above -- Thomas Purvis -- is prepared to document his claim that George Michael Evica, whose work is the subject of this thread, "has not taken that much time and effort" in examining JFK's medical condition, then I have no choice but to post a warning to all stakeholders in this Forum that Purvis is either a fool or worse.

The "worse" would be an agent of the forces who killed JFK.

Purvis has not the slightest factual basis whatsoever on which to build his slander of a researcher whose contributions to the searches for truth and justice for JFK are as unsurpassed in terms of their importance as they are universally recognized and honored.

Purvis is the worst kind of provocateur: one who will slash and burn without concern for the truth. He is devoid of personal honor. He is, in a word, the enemy.

But prove me wrong, Purvis, and I'll publicly apologize to you and the entire Forum. Cite chapter and verse on the breadth and depth of Evica's research on the medical evidence. Show us that you have read and understood the book length studies And We are All Mortal and A Certain Arrogance, that you have read and understood the 40-plus JFK-related papers published by Evica over his professional lifetime, that you have demonstrated even a pitiful approximation of Evica's grasp of detail and power to reason.

Show us, Purvis. And I'll apologize.

But you can't, can you?

You are the laughing stock of this Forum, Purvis.

And I reserve my heartiest laughter for when I think about how, late at night, the demons come to reward you for your perfidy.

Charles Drago

I agree, Charles. Tom Purvis regularly hands out haughty insults to those who hold a different view. He gets a good run from the mods.

Tom's posts are confusing. Tom thinks LHO killed JFK (correct me if I am wrong) and the WC was a coverup. That doesn't make sense. Tom also floods threads with irrelevant material.

Tom's a xxxxx.

1. JFK was assassinated as a result of three shots, which were all fired from the sixth floor of the TSDB.

2. To a reasonably high degree of certainty, (beyond a reasonable doubt) LHO was the person who fired these shots.

3. The WC is an intentional lie and obfuscation of the simple facts of the assassination.

4. There was no "THE SHOT THAT MISSED"

5. The "non-existent" reference to the chest drains placed into the chest of JFK, as related to "subcutaneous emphysema" can be found in the handwritten notes of Dr. Humes, as well as the official autopsy report.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0029b.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0502a.htm

That anyone who claims to be a researcher, is/was not aware of this, tells me all that I need to know in regards to said research and/or research abililty.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Thomas,

Thanks for your help. Unfortunately to me this issue is still about as clear as mud, so I can't, to paraphrase, "decide for myself." There is too much here that needs to be pulled together in some clear organized fashion, i.e. in an article. One gets the impression that all these doctors say one thing and then another and really don't know what happened themselves. To go back to the original post of this thread, I wish that Evica's essay on this subject was available somewhere online. Failing that, I wish someone would write the aforementioned article. (I'm afraid I'm not the person to try it.)

Does the terminology "medical error" explain anything?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/carrico2.htm

Dr. CARRICO - The pupils were inspected and seemed to be bilaterally dilated and fixed. No pulse was present, and at that time, because of the inadequate respirations and the apparent airway injury, a cuffed endotracheal tube was introduced,

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/perry_m1.htm

Dr. PERRY - Dr. Carrico had very judicially placed an endotracheal but unfortunately due to the injury to the trachea, the cuff which is an inflatable balloon on the endotracheal tube was not below the tracheal injury and thus he could not secure the adequate airway that you would require to maintain respiration.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/carrico2.htm

Dr. CARRICO - I believe we were to where the endotracheal tube had been inserted. After this, the President--his respirations were assisted by the Bennett machine. We again listened to .his chest to attempt to evaluate the respirations. Breath sounds were diminished, especially on the right, despite the fact that the endotracheal tube was in place and the cuff inflated, there continued to be some leakage around the tracheal wound

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/perry_m1.htm

Dr. PERRY - At the time I entered the door, Dr. Carrico was attending him. He was attaching the Bennett apparatus to an endotracheal tube in place to assist his respiration.

Dr. PERRY - Yes. Once the transverse incision through the skin and subcutaneous tissues was made, it was necessary to separate the strap muscles covering the anterior muscles of the windpipe and thyroid. At that point the trachea was noted to be deviated slightly to the left and I found it necessary to sever the exterior strap muscles on the other side to reach the trachea.

I noticed a small ragged laceration of the trachea on the anterior lateral right side. I could see the endotracheal tube which had been placed by Dr. Carrico in the wound, but there was evidence of air and blood around the tube because I noted the cuff was just above the injury to the trachea.

I noticed there was free air and blood in the right mediastinum

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Carrico inserted the endotracheal tube, inflated the cuff, and thereafter began positive pressure ventilation of JFK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endotracheal_tube

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/arrbpark.htm

DR. PETERS: Jim had tubed the President, and then when he tried to bag him, there was a big air leak, and so they decided they would put the tracheostomy tube into the wound in the neck

DR. PERRY: It -- as I said the wound was exuding blood slowly, but Dr. Baxter mentioned about ineffective attempts to bag him because of the position of the wound in the trach. And when I opened the neck, there was an injury to the trachea on the right lateral side. There was air and blood in that area of the mediastinum.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, Dr. Carrico failed to verify a "closed" airway, and thusly inflated the "cuff" seal of the tube within the trachea at a location which was higher than the tear to the trachea.

When "positive pressure" ventilation was induced into JFK's lungs (which contained no pneumothorax/penetrations), the pressure buildup allowed gases to escape from the pulmonary system, out the tear in the trachea, and begin to fill the chest cavity.

Thus, mediastinal emphysema was instantly introduced into JFK's chest cavity.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-90517...tinal-emphysema

Mediastinal emphysema affects the ability of the heart to function properly, as well as creation of external pressure onto the outer perimeter of the lungs, thus creating difficulty in breathing, as well as creation of difficulty in checking respiratory function and heart function externally.

The "immediate" medical procedure to release the buildup of pressure within the mediastinum, happens to be an incision into the chest or else perform a tracheotomy.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerende...amp;pageindex=1

In the case where mediastinal emphysema has been induced, a "rush/gush" of air, upon completion of the tracheotomy incision, is common.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/perry_m1.htm

Dr. PERRY - I noticed there was free air and blood in the right mediastinum

Dr. PERRY - There was both blood, free blood and air in the right superior mediastinum. That is the space that is located between the lungs and the heart at that level.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0028a.htm

"bloody air in upper mediastinum"

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/arrbpark.htm

DR. PERRY: There was hair [sic = "air"] in the mediastinum,

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/jones_r.htm

Dr. JONES - Dr. Perry with the tracheotomy, and as they made a deeper incision in the neck to isolate the trachea, they thought they saw some gush of air

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to that air which was in fact "pumped" into the mediastinum, air was also pumped up into the space of the neck and tissues of the neck.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/int...ial%20emphysema

The presence of air or gas in the connective tissue.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/hs...ial%20emphysema

The panel noted a general haziness and poorly defined decrease in radiodensity in the neck tissues just above the right chest cavity in films 8 and 9, and attributed this to interstitial emphysema. This was probably related to the surgical tracheotomy or missile injury to the trachea, followed by positive pressure insufflation , with a slight escape of air into the adjacent tissues

Increased radiolucency, most probably caused by the interstitial emphysema noted earlier, rendered it virtually impossible to ascertain whether or not there was a similar fracture of the right transverse process of the seventh cervical vertebra

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, in addition to induced mediastinal emphysema, the improper intubation of JFK also created interstitial emphysema within the neck.

The end result of induced mediastianal emphysema as well as interstitial emphysema, is subcutaneous emphysema, as these gases are dissolved into the surrounding tissues.

I would further add, that these medical conditions frequently cause considerable swelling of the neck as well as surrounding tissues of the chest, back, face and thorax.

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Thomas H. Purvis]

1. Someone, who has quite obviously not taken that much time and effort in examination of the medical condition of JFK ...

To Purvis, the Moderators, and all Readers of the Forum:

Until and unless the author of the comment quoted above -- Thomas Purvis -- is prepared to document his claim that George Michael Evica, whose work is the subject of this thread, "has not taken that much time and effort" in examining JFK's medical condition, then I have no choice but to post a warning to all stakeholders in this Forum that Purvis is either a fool or worse.

The "worse" would be an agent of the forces who killed JFK.

Purvis has not the slightest factual basis whatsoever on which to build his slander of a researcher whose contributions to the searches for truth and justice for JFK are as unsurpassed in terms of their importance as they are universally recognized and honored.

Purvis is the worst kind of provocateur: one who will slash and burn without concern for the truth. He is devoid of personal honor. He is, in a word, the enemy.

But prove me wrong, Purvis, and I'll publicly apologize to you and the entire Forum. Cite chapter and verse on the breadth and depth of Evica's research on the medical evidence. Show us that you have read and understood the book length studies And We are All Mortal and A Certain Arrogance, that you have read and understood the 40-plus JFK-related papers published by Evica over his professional lifetime, that you have demonstrated even a pitiful approximation of Evica's grasp of detail and power to reason.

Show us, Purvis. And I'll apologize.

But you can't, can you?

You are the laughing stock of this Forum, Purvis.

And I reserve my heartiest laughter for when I think about how, late at night, the demons come to reward you for your perfidy.

Charles Drago

Post #3

"You haven't the remotest idea of the level of research upon which the papers in question are based,"

Post #5

"Please document your "original work" that referenced Warren Commission and/or ARRB testimony in which "subcutaneous" appears in relation to the chest tubes, and where "emphysema" appears at all."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0029b.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0502a.htm

http://www.jfklancer.com/ClarkPanel.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_autopsy

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/hscv7c.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Difficulty Rating (on scale of 1 to 10):---------------------2

[Charles Drago]

Respond to my challenge.

Have you no shame, Purvis?

[Charles Drago]

Don't run and hide.

Respond to me:

Cite chapter and verse on the breadth and depth of Evica's research on the medical evidence. Show us that you have read and understood the book length studies And We are All Mortal and A Certain Arrogance, that you have read and understood the 40-plus JFK-related papers published by Evica over his professional lifetime, that you have demonstrated even a pitiful approximation of Evica's grasp of detail and power to reason.

You referenced Professor Evica as, "Someone, who has quite obviously not taken that much time and effort in examination of the medical condition of JFK ... "

You couldn't even bring yourself to write his name.

Defend yourself, Purvis. Or slouch off toward whatever dark Bethlehem brought you forth.

Charles Drago

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Respond to my challenge.

Have you no shame, Purvis?

Post #3

"You haven't the remotest idea of the level of research upon which the papers in question are based,"

Post #5

"Please document your "original work" that referenced Warren Commission and/or ARRB testimony in which "subcutaneous" appears in relation to the chest tubes, and where "emphysema" appears at all."-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0029b.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0502a.htm

http://www.jfklancer.com/ClarkPanel.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_autopsy

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/hscv7c.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Difficulty Rating (on scale of 1 to 10):---------------------2

[Charles Drago]

Where do we find such men?

You're done on these pages, Purvis.

Go play with your plat maps, and leave honorable pursuits to honorable men and women.

Charles Drago

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Don't run and hide.

Respond to me:

Cite chapter and verse on the breadth and depth of Evica's research on the medical evidence. Show us that you have read and understood the book length studies And We are All Mortal and A Certain Arrogance, that you have read and understood the 40-plus JFK-related papers published by Evica over his professional lifetime, that you have demonstrated even a pitiful approximation of Evica's grasp of detail and power to reason.

You referenced Professor Evica as, "Someone, who has quite obviously not taken that much time and effort in examination of the medical condition of JFK ... "

You couldn't even bring yourself to write his name.

Defend yourself, Purvis. Or slouch off toward whatever dark Bethlehem brought you forth.

Charles Drago

"You referenced Professor Evica as, "Someone, who has quite obviously not taken that much time and effort in examination of the medical condition of JFK ... ""

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post #3

It would appear that someone did not do their "reading assignment" prior to insertion of foot into mouth, and still did not do it even after having been informed of the subject matter.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post #5

"Please document your "original work" that referenced Warren Commission and/or ARRB testimony in which "subcutaneous" appears in relation to the chest tubes, and where "emphysema" appears at all."

Charles Drago

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually! I have no direct personal knowledge as to what anyone/aka someone, other than Charles Drago has stated.

Therefore, in order to find "someone", perhaps you just might ought to look into the mirror Charles.