Jack White Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 We are in agreement on the back wound too. And who is going to quibble with a Brit gal, eh? <g>Bests, Barb :-) Barb The way I look at the back wound is like this: if it wasn't there and was added postmortem then it was a massive fundamental faux-pax on the part of the conspirators. Why add it if you can't add it in the right place? Why put the pressure on Specter and Ford forcing them to perform their linguistic and natural-laws of physics acrobatics by putting the hole in the wrong place? If you needed the back wound to come out of his throat then surely you'd put it in the back of his neck and photograph it there? Lee A faked postmortem back wound has to contend with the holes in the shirt and coat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 We are in agreement on the back wound too. And who is going to quibble with a Brit gal, eh? <g>Bests, Barb :-) Barb The way I look at the back wound is like this: if it wasn't there and was added postmortem then it was a massive fundamental faux-pax on the part of the conspirators. Why add it if you can't add it in the right place? Why put the pressure on Specter and Ford forcing them to perform their linguistic and natural-laws of physics acrobatics by putting the hole in the wrong place? If you needed the back wound to come out of his throat then surely you'd put it in the back of his neck and photograph it there? Lee A faked postmortem back wound has to contend with the holes in the shirt and coat. But Jack, if there wasn't a wound in the first place then surely there would be no hole in shirt or coat either. Or am I missing something? You are missing something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 You are missing something. You want to let me know what it is or are you going to try and be smart/flippant and drag this thread into a slanging match like the rest? And please bear in mind that this is all connected to my trying to get to grips with the argument that JFK wasn't shot in the back at all - and I'm reminding you that that is something that you claim you disagree with. I do not claim to disagree with a shot to the back at all. Why do you misquote me? I am not being flippant. I was stating a fact. Do your homework and quit misquoting people. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 (edited) Lee, do me this huge favor and download "Reasoning about Assassinations" via google. Do you agree with my arguments there? We are in agreement on the back wound too. And who is going to quibble with a Brit gal, eh? <g>Bests, Barb :-) Barb The way I look at the back wound is like this: if it wasn't there and was added postmortem then it was a massive fundamental faux-pax on the part of the conspirators. Why add it if you can't add it in the right place? Why put the pressure on Specter and Ford forcing them to perform their linguistic and natural-laws of physics acrobatics by putting the hole in the wrong place? If you needed the back wound to come out of his throat then surely you'd put it in the back of his neck and photograph it there? Lee A faked postmortem back wound has to contend with the holes in the shirt and coat. But Jack, if there wasn't a wound in the first place then surely there would be no hole in shirt or coat either. Or am I missing something? Edited February 6, 2010 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb Junkkarinen Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 A faked postmortem back wound has to contend with the holes in the shirt and coat. If the wound was faked postmortem, how did the bullet hole in the coat and shirt get there, Jack?<g> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 Read Tom Robinson's observations in my chapter from http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/jfkconference/ There was no discoloration of the face, which meant that he died instantly. The rest appears to have been feigned to accommodate last rites because he was Catholic. But he was killed in Dealey Plaza, not by the back or throat wounds but from either the back of the head wound or especially the bullet that entered his right temple and blew his brains out to the left-rear. Do you even know the medical definition of a pulse? I dont care What do you not understand? Your not proving anything to me because I could care less what the medical definition of a pulse is Jack is correct in that the second the bullet hit JFKs head he was gone forever, im saying that the Doctors saw some signs of life, why else would they do CPR and other life saving procedures instead of just pronouncing him DOA? Dont reply Barb, your wasting your time because I dont care Dean "No Pulse" Hagerman Oh, it's obvious you don't care. It is also obvious *why*. I understand completely. But, some others might care. Of course they saw some signs of life (a few agonal breaths, sporadic heartbeats by stethoscope) and immediately started measures to see if they could get some Cardio and Pulmonary Resuscitation happening ... that is what CPR is for . Then Jenkins drew their attention to the wound in the rear of the head, Clark took a look ... and they pronounced him. Since you claimed he had a pulse, then go figure why you sign off as "No Pulse" Hagerman. <g> Chill. A simple error is no big deal, go figure why you made it one. The point was to not start a factoid that he had a pulse at Parkland. He didn't ... as the doctors reported. Accuracy is what matters. Barb :-) Ok I was wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 (edited) A faked postmortem back wound has to contend with the holes in the shirt and coat. If the wound was faked postmortem, how did the bullet hole in the coat and shirt get there, Jack?<g> Why are you directing this question to me? The faked postmortem wound was suggested by several and reported in Horne. To me, if a bullet penetrated the coat and shirt, there would have been a corresponding wound. The ONLY reason to fake an additional wound postmortem would be to move the would to a higher location and cover the lower wound. I have not suggested that as a belief, but as a possibility proposed by others. Why do these people continually try to put words in my mouth? Edited February 6, 2010 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb Junkkarinen Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 We are in agreement on the back wound too. And who is going to quibble with a Brit gal, eh? <g>Bests, Barb :-) Barb The way I look at the back wound is like this: if it wasn't there and was added postmortem then it was a massive fundamental faux-pax on the part of the conspirators. Why add it if you can't add it in the right place? Why put the pressure on Specter and Ford forcing them to perform their linguistic and natural-laws of physics acrobatics by putting the hole in the wrong place? If you needed the back wound to come out of his throat then surely you'd put it in the back of his neck and photograph it there? Lee Good point. Ford, of course, tried to help out there by moving the wound. Had there not been a bullet hole in the back (and the coat and shirt) they could have gone with the throat wound having been made by an exiting fragment from the head .... save for the fact that JFK had already obviously been wounded before the head shot ... but, nevertheless, that was considered at one point in time anyway (see WC executive transcript from 1/27/64). That would have worked with a non transiting back bullet ... and would have made CE399 easier to contend with for them too. At any rate, we agree on there having been a wound in the back. Do we agree that it transited and exited the throat? Bests, Barb :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 We are in agreement on the back wound too. And who is going to quibble with a Brit gal, eh? <g>Bests, Barb :-) Barb The way I look at the back wound is like this: if it wasn't there and was added postmortem then it was a massive fundamental faux-pax on the part of the conspirators. Why add it if you can't add it in the right place? Why put the pressure on Specter and Ford forcing them to perform their linguistic and natural-laws of physics acrobatics by putting the hole in the wrong place? If you needed the back wound to come out of his throat then surely you'd put it in the back of his neck and photograph it there? Lee Good point. Ford, of course, tried to help out there by moving the wound. Had there not been a bullet hole in the back (and the coat and shirt) they could have gone with the throat wound having been made by an exiting fragment from the head .... save for the fact that JFK had already obviously been wounded before the head shot ... but, nevertheless, that was considered at one point in time anyway (see WC executive transcript from 1/27/64). That would have worked with a non transiting back bullet ... and would have made CE399 easier to contend with for them too. At any rate, we agree on there having been a wound in the back. Do we agree that it transited and exited the throat? Bests, Barb :-) Only LONENUTTERS hold that view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb Junkkarinen Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 Read Tom Robinson's observations in my chapter from http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/jfkconference/ There was no discoloration of the face, which meant that he died instantly. The rest appears to have been feigned to accommodate last rites because he was Catholic. But he was killed in Dealey Plaza, not by the back or throat wounds but from either the back of the head wound or especially the bullet that entered his right temple and blew his brains out to the left-rear. Gee, ya *think*? Of course he was dead instantly, for all intents and purposes. Just not quite clinically so (as regards agonal breaths and a few erratic heartbeats by auscultation) ... sometimes it just takes the body a few minutes for those things to stop. Jack and I already had an exchange on this ... one thing we agree on. You speculate the rest was feigned .... and that is at odds with what happens in ERs everyday when people arrive quite wounded, or not apparently wounded at all, but presenting with some respiratory efforts, some heart sounds ... or even none at all. They institute establishing an airway and circulation first ... and see how it goes while assessing the problems overall. They did keep it up longer/delayed pronouncing him because of waiting for the priest to perform what was then called Extreme Unction. But that the initial treatment in the ER was only a ruse of some sort is pure speculation. And unfounded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 Read Tom Robinson's observations in my chapter from http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/jfkconference/ There was no discoloration of the face, which meant that he died instantly. The rest appears to have been feigned to accommodate last rites because he was Catholic. But he was killed in Dealey Plaza, not by the back or throat wounds but from either the back of the head wound or especially the bullet that entered his right temple and blew his brains out to the left-rear. Gee, ya *think*? Of course he was dead instantly, for all intents and purposes. Just not quite clinically so (as regards agonal breaths and a few erratic heartbeats by auscultation) ... sometimes it just takes the body a few minutes for those things to stop. Jack and I already had an exchange on this ... one thing we agree on. You speculate the rest was feigned .... and that is at odds with what happens in ERs everyday when people arrive quite wounded, or not apparently wounded at all, but presenting with some respiratory efforts, some heart sounds ... or even none at all. They institute establishing an airway and circulation first ... and see how it goes while assessing the problems overall. They did keep it up longer/delayed pronouncing him because of waiting for the priest to perform what was then called Extreme Unction. But that the initial treatment in the ER was only a ruse of some sort is pure speculation. And unfounded. The doctors agreed that JFK was dead on first seeing him. But they agreed that they had to appear to take all standard life saving measures, lest they might appear to not be "trying". Then they waited for the priest. Then they decided to make the official time of death 1:00 p.m. to reflect that "they tried". Interpret it any way you want...but that is what is learned from reading all of the testimonies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 If the wound was faked postmortem, how did the bullet hole in the coat and shirt get there, Jack?<g> Anyone care to give a short dissertation on the CHAIN OF CUSTODY of the SHIRT & JACKET? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb Junkkarinen Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 The doctors agreed that JFK was dead on first seeing him. But they agreed that they had to appear to takeall standard life saving measures, lest they might appear to not be "trying". Then they waited for the priest. Then they decided to make the official time of death 1:00 p.m. to reflect that "they tried". Interpret it any way you want...but that is what is learned from reading all of the testimonies. Maybe you can hum a few bars of the testimony that says exactly that, Jack. Specifically. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb Junkkarinen Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 We are in agreement on the back wound too. And who is going to quibble with a Brit gal, eh? <g>Bests, Barb :-) Barb The way I look at the back wound is like this: if it wasn't there and was added postmortem then it was a massive fundamental faux-pax on the part of the conspirators. Why add it if you can't add it in the right place? Why put the pressure on Specter and Ford forcing them to perform their linguistic and natural-laws of physics acrobatics by putting the hole in the wrong place? If you needed the back wound to come out of his throat then surely you'd put it in the back of his neck and photograph it there? Lee Good point. Ford, of course, tried to help out there by moving the wound. Had there not been a bullet hole in the back (and the coat and shirt) they could have gone with the throat wound having been made by an exiting fragment from the head .... save for the fact that JFK had already obviously been wounded before the head shot ... but, nevertheless, that was considered at one point in time anyway (see WC executive transcript from 1/27/64). That would have worked with a non transiting back bullet ... and would have made CE399 easier to contend with for them too. At any rate, we agree on there having been a wound in the back. Do we agree that it transited and exited the throat? Bests, Barb :-) Only LONENUTTERS hold that view. Only in your closed little world, Jack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 We are in agreement on the back wound too. And who is going to quibble with a Brit gal, eh? <g>Bests, Barb :-) Barb The way I look at the back wound is like this: if it wasn't there and was added postmortem then it was a massive fundamental faux-pax on the part of the conspirators. Why add it if you can't add it in the right place? Why put the pressure on Specter and Ford forcing them to perform their linguistic and natural-laws of physics acrobatics by putting the hole in the wrong place? If you needed the back wound to come out of his throat then surely you'd put it in the back of his neck and photograph it there? Lee Good point. Ford, of course, tried to help out there by moving the wound. Had there not been a bullet hole in the back (and the coat and shirt) they could have gone with the throat wound having been made by an exiting fragment from the head .... save for the fact that JFK had already obviously been wounded before the head shot ... but, nevertheless, that was considered at one point in time anyway (see WC executive transcript from 1/27/64). That would have worked with a non transiting back bullet ... and would have made CE399 easier to contend with for them too. At any rate, we agree on there having been a wound in the back. Do we agree that it transited and exited the throat? Bests, Barb :-) Only LONENUTTERS hold that view. Only in your closed little world, Jack. This is total nonsense. Dr. Mantik has shown conclusively that the magic bullet could NOT have "transited and exited the throat" as lonenutters agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now