Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Thomas Kroger

Dealing with deniers

Recommended Posts

We all do...that's the point of an autopsy.

So you want to throw away the SBT based on the fact that the neck wasn't dissected?

Can I then feel free to toss aside the ludicrous "Two Bullets Went Into JFK & Got Themselves Lost" theory, due to the fact there are no bullets to prove that theory at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then you quote Boswell talking about probing from the front, when the witnesses said the probe went in from the back.

You think that Boswell is talking about probing the FRONT-OF-THE-NECK wound in the quote below? You're kidding.

He's talking about the UPPER-BACK wound being probed, not the throat wound, even though he uses the word "neck" here; which many people did, because the wound was near the junction of the upper back and lower neck:

"When we saw the clothing, we realized that where I had drawn this was--if you looked at the back of the coat, it was in the exact same place. But the coat had been--was up like this. He was waving, and this was all scrunched up like this. And the bullet went through the coat way below where this would be on his body, because it was really at the base of his neck. And the way I know this best is my memory of the fact that-- see, we probed this hole which was in his neck with all sorts of probes and everything, and it was such a small hole, basically, and the muscles were so big and strong and had closed the hole and you couldn't get a finger or a probe through it." -- Dr. Boswell

It's obvious that Boswell is talking about the BACK wound with the "small hole" and JFK's "big and strong" BACK muscles.

You think he's talking about the muscles in the front of JFK's throat there, Jim?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What the heck do you mean by "partially" sectioned?

It's in the Supplementary Autopsy Report (WR; Pg 544):

"In the interest of preserving the specimen, coronal sections are not made. The following

sections are taken for microscopic examination..."

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0284b.htm

WCReport_0284b.gif

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More Von Peinian malarkey.

This is actually something I try to stay away from, that is trying to reconstruct what actually happened to Kennedy In Dealey plaza. You can't really do it since the autopsy was so rigged.

But anyone who you explain it to, will say the SBT is pure crapola. It was nothing but a fiction created by Arlen Specter and the WC.

Hoover did not buy it, Johnson did not buy it, Russell did not buy it. Cooper did not buy it.

It never happened.

The Connallys did not buy it, David Ferrie did not buy it, Richard Nixon did not buy it, Hale Boggs did not buy it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that's a pretty impressive list of people who DIDN'T buy into the SBT - Hoover, Johnson, Russell, Cooper, the Connallys, David Ferrie, Richard Nixon, Hale Boggs. They were close enough to the events to have a privileged view. And even Richard Nixon remarked "You don't want to know" what he knew about the assassination. And after the WC releases its work, Earl Warren tells us that we wouldn't know the truth about the assassination in our lifetimes? Wasn't "the truth" supposed to be within those 26 volumes? Taking that, along with the continued secrecy, I find it astonishing that anyone now living would accept the SBT. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the distinct impression I have of SBT is that it is insubstantial, and Gerald Posner relies on some phony computer models that he didn't pay for. Garbage In, Garbage Out. And the SBT scenario as it is presented - a shot from the rear - flies in the face of what the Parkland doctors had to say - Dr. McClelland, Dr. Crenshaw, and RN Audrey Bell, among eleven others. These other parties include two orderlies at Bethesda. IMHO, there is every reason to doubt the SBT as a sanitized, ad-hoc theory. To accept it, you have to ignore the earliest medical observations, and I just don't think that's intellectually honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"When we saw the clothing, we realized that where I had drawn this was--if you looked at the back of the coat, it was in the exact same place. But the coat had been--was up like this. He was waving, and this was all scrunched up like this."

David, could you show us what "this" looks like -- 2+ inches of tucked in custom-made dress shirt bunched up entirely above the SBT in-shoot at the base of the neck?

The bullet hole in the shirt is 4 inches below the bottom of the collar. The burden of proof is on bunch-fallacists to replicate the claim that JFK's shirt behaved in a manner consistent with the SBT.

Let's see it, David.

What does "this" look like?

Hint: you'll never demonstrate it, David. "This" is contrary to the nature of reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tell me that the above does not sound like they were probing from the neck?

No, it doesn't. He was talking about probing the back wound, not the throat wound. Better read this again:

"When we saw the clothing, we realized that where I had drawn this was--if you looked at the back of the coat, it was in the exact same place. But the coat had been--was up like this. He was waving, and this was all scrunched up like this. And the bullet went through the coat way below where this would be on his body, because it was really at the base of his neck. And the way I know this best is my memory of the fact that-- see, we probed this hole which was in his neck with all sorts of probes and everything, and it was such a small hole, basically, and the muscles were so big and strong and had closed the hole and you couldn't get a finger or a probe through it." -- Dr. Boswell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"And the bullet went through the coat way below where this would be on his body, because it was really at the base of his neck. And the way I know this best is my memory of the fact that-- see, we probed this hole which was in his neck with all sorts of probes and everything..." -- Dr. Boswell

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RE: brain sectioning:

From the supplementary autopsy report:

"The following sections [of JFK's brain] are taken for microscopic examination..."

Seven specific "sections" of the brain are then listed on Page 544 (a thru g). If this isn't a partial sectioning of the brain, then what is?

WCReport_0284b.gif

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...some very limited sectioning [of JFK's brain] was done..." -- Page 383 of Reclaiming History

And Page 544 of the WR confirms this. Right there in the autopsy report, which DiEugenio will always ignore.

Also: Via Dr. Humes' ARRB testimony:

Question -- "Were any sections taken at all from the brain?"

Dr. Humes -- "Not at that time. Some place else I showed you, the report you showed, we did take certain sections a day or two later, whatever it was, from the location--we didn't divide the brain like we often do. You know, we often make a so-called bread loaf-type incision. Some people do it fore and aft. Some people do it different ways. But we didn't do that with this brain, because the next thing you know George Burkley wanted it. We might have gone on to do that, but when he came and said that they wanted the brain, fine, you know. I'm not going to argue about it."

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...some very limited sectioning [of JFK's brain] was done..." -- Page 383 of Reclaiming History

And Page 544 of the WR confirms this. Right there in the autopsy report, which DiEugenio will always ignore.

Also: Via Dr. Humes' ARRB testimony:

Question -- "Were any sections taken at all from the brain?"

Dr. Humes -- "Not at that time. Some place else I showed you, the report you showed, we did take certain sections a day or two later, whatever it was, from the location--we didn't divide the brain like we often do. You know, we often make a so-called bread loaf-type incision. Some people do it fore and aft. Some people do it different ways. But we didn't do that with this brain, because the next thing you know George Burkley wanted it. We might have gone on to do that, but when he came and said that they wanted the brain, fine, you know. I'm not going to argue about it."

David are you Vince Bugliosi?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Main point being:

DiEugenio is dead wrong .... the brain WAS partially sectioned.

What do think the words "section" and "taken" mean here?:

"The following sections are taken for microscopic examination."

And why on Earth do you think a brain cannot be "partially" sectioned? Of course it can be. And it was. And Dr. Humes says so in his ARRB testimony I quoted earlier. Let's see it again (and have DiEugenio ignore it again, as usual):

Dr. J.J. Humes -- "We did take certain sections a day or two later..."

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Main point being:

DiEugenio is dead wrong .... the brain WAS partially sectioned.

What do think the words "section" and "taken" mean here?:

"The following sections are taken for microscopic examination."

And why on Earth do you think a brain cannot be "partially" sectioned? Of course it can be. And it was. And Dr. Humes says so in his ARRB testimony I quoted earlier. Let's see it again (and have DiEugenio ignore it again, as usual):

Dr. J.J. Humes -- "We did take certain sections a day or two later..."

There were two separate brain exams, weeks after the assassination. Dr. Fink was only present at one of them.

There were also two different brains, one that belonged to JFK, that was partially obliterated by a bullet to the head, and one brain that was said to be his, but wasn't because the extant photos show a brain in a liquid solution that doctors said had to been in the jar on a shelf for months because of its color and texture, so it wasn't JFK's brain.

BK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...