Jump to content
The Education Forum

John McAdams has passed on


Recommended Posts

On 4/27/2021 at 10:47 PM, Ron Bulman said:

He actually said he was out front with Shelly, if you believe the FBI agents notes.  And of course you would believe J Edgar's boys?  Back with another blast of 18 posts n 16 hours.  Many long ones.  If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with...

He actually said he was inside the building during the shooting, if you believe the recording. You know the one, where he went on to say he was just a patsy because he had been to Russia. 

Hank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 377
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 4/28/2021 at 8:01 AM, Denny Zartman said:

Wasn't the rifle that was found a Mauser?

No. It was mistakenly identified as one by Seymour Weitzmann in a memorandum for the record. But the two weapons look a lot alike and the MC is actually based on the Mauser design. Weitzman backtracked on his ID in his testimony. He also admitted he misidentified the scope. 

https://gaylenixjackson.com/jfk-assassination/seymour-weitzman/

== QUOTE ==

Mr. BALL - In the statement that you made to the Dallas Police Department that afternoon, you referred to the rifle as a 7.65 Mauser bolt action?
Mr. WEITZMAN - In a glance, that's what it looked like.
Mr. BALL - That's what it looked like did you say that or someone else say that?
Mr. WEITZMAN - No; I said that. I thought it was one.
Mr. BALL - Are you fairly familiar with rifles?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Fairly familiar because I was in the sporting goods business awhile.
Mr. BALL - What branch of service were you in?
Mr. WEITZMAN - U.S. Air Force.
Mr. BALL - Did you handle rifles?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Mostly Thompson machine guns and pistols.
... 
Mr. BALL - I understand that. Now, in your statement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, you gave a description of the rifle, how it looked.
Mr. WEITZMAN - I said it was a Mauser-type action, didn't I?
Mr. BALL - Mauser bolt action.
Mr. WEITZMAN - And at the time I looked at it, I believe I said it was 2.5 scope on it and I believe I said it was a Weaver but it wasn't; it turned out to be anything but a Weaver, but that was at a glance.
Mr. BALL - You also said it was a gun metal color?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Gray or blue?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Blue metal.
Mr. BALL - And the rear portion of the bolt was visibly worn, is that worn?
Mr. WEITZMAN - That's right.
Mr. BALL - And the wooden portion of the rifle was what color?
Mr. WEITZMAN - It was a brown, or I would say not a mahogany brown but dark oak brown.
Mr. BALL - Rough wood, was it?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir; rough wood.
Mr. BALL - And it was equipped with a scope?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Was it of Japanese manufacture?
Mr. WEITZMAN - I believe it was a 2.5 Weaver at the time I looked at it. I didn't look that close at it; it just looked like a 2.5 but it turned out to be a Japanese scope, I believe.
== UNQUOTE ==

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

Film and photos of the rifle inside the building and being removed from the building were examined by the HSCA photographic panel in 1978. They determined the rifle shown is a Mannlicher-Carcano. 

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0035a.htm

Question: Why would conspirators plant (or use) a Mauser and then try to frame Oswald for owning a Mannlicher-Carcano? If they are going to plant (or use) a Mauser in the assassination, why not frame the supposed patsy Oswald for owning that

Hank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/27/2021 at 9:18 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

No, all I have to do is inventory them and point out the redundancy.  6.5mm FMJ don't leave shallow wounds in soft tissue so your lone nut theory is idiotic on it's face.

I don't have to make a case for anything.  The evidence speaks for itself.

My "Lone Nut" theory (a misnomer because I don't think Oswald was a nut) is that the 6.5mm FMJ bullet fired from Oswald's rifle didn't leave a shallow wound in soft tissue, so you're knocking some straw man theory down, not mine. 

Yes, the evidence speaks for itself. And the medical experts (which excludes you and I) concluded what? That all the bullets that struck JFK were fired from above and behind the level of the deceased. And came from Oswald's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. 

Here's the HSCA conclusion on that (see I.A):  

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0005a.htm

Here's the WC conclusions on the same subject:

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0021b.htm

Your opinion about what we should be looking at or how is meaningless. 

Hank

 

Edited by Hank Sienzant
Premature send
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/27/2021 at 5:01 PM, James DiEugenio said:

I love this one by Hank:

They are more contemporaneous than the recollections you cite from 1978. A draft was prepared the Sunday after the autopsy and it was typed up the same day - on 11/24/63

Can anyone show me a date on the autopsy report?  If you can please do.

Humes testimony dates it:

== QUOTE ==

Commander HUMES - I believe at this point I would like to have, if you have my gross autopsy description because I will give the dimensions of these wounds at this time.
Mr. SPECTER - We will use the Commission Exhibit No. 387 and I will ask you first of all, for the record, to identify what this document is, Dr. Humes.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 387 for identification.)
Commander HUMES - This document is a copy of the gross autopsy report which was prepared by myself, Dr. Boswell, and Dr. Finck, and completed within approximately 48 hours after the assassination of the President.

== UNQUOTE ==

Here is CE387:

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0501b.htm

Hank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/28/2021 at 12:29 PM, W. Niederhut said:

Perhaps you and Hank can answer some questions, rather than ignoring rebuttals.

1)  Did JFK's head snap violently backward during the fatal shot? 

2)  Did the fatal shot blast an occipital skull fragment (and brain matter) backward, behind the limo, striking a cop? 

3)  Did ballistics testing show that a fatal head shot fired from the TSBD (behind the limo) would have knocked JFK's head forward, blowing off the right side of his face?  

 

 

Hilarious. The only one ignoring rebuttals has been you. 

1. Asked and answered already. The bullet is long gone by the time the Zapruder film captures frame 313. The bullet was travelling over 2000 feet per second, and Zapruder's camera exposed film at the rate of 18.3 frames per second. At Z312, Kennedy's head is not yet struck. At Z313 the head is visibly damaged, and one large fragment (most likely the Harper fragment) can be seen spirally upward at about the one o'clock position in that frame. 

At a minimum of 2000 feet per second, the bullet that struck JFK in the head travels about 110 feet between frame 312 and 313. Momentum, from my college physics classes, is imparted at the moment of impact. The moment of impact must have been between Z312 and Z313. That means the movement caused by the bullet itself is reflected in those two frames. In Z313 JFK's head moves forward and down relative to Jackie. That's the movement you see caused by the bullet strike. Anything that transpires after frame Z313 is not caused by the bullet strike, because the bullet is long gone. 

2. Asked and answered already. The Harper fragment was found in front of the limo at the time of the head shot. This is reflected in both the FBI interview of Harper and the map Milicent Cranor asked Harper to mark (previously provided to you).

3. I'm unaware of any ballistics test that establish what you claim. Enlighten me with a link to the actual test(s) that establish this. Are you referring to the tests performed by Light, Dziemien, and Olivier, perchance? If so, please quote the conclusion of the expert, not your own conclusion. Here, I'll do it for you:

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

== QUOTE ==

Mr. SPECTER. I hand you Commission Exhibit 862, move its admission into evidence, and ask you what that depicts?
Dr. OLIVIER. This is the same skull. This is just looking at it from the front. You are looking at the exit. You can't see it here because the bone has been blown away, but the bullet exited somewhere around---we reconstructed the skull. In other words, it exited very close to the superorbital ridge, possibly below it.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you formulate any other conclusions or opinions based on the tests on firing at the skull?
Dr. OLIVIER. Well, let's see. We found that this bullet could do exactly--could make the type of wound that the President received.
Also, that the recovered fragments were very similar to the ones recovered on the front seat and on the floor of the car.
This, to me, indicates that those fragments did come from the bullet that wounded the President in the head.

Mr. SPECTER. And how do the two major fragments in 857 compare, then, with the fragments heretofore identified as 567 and 569?
Dr. OLIVIER. They are quite similar.

== UNQUOTE ==

CE 567 and CE569 are two fragments found in the limo by the Secret Service on the evening of the assassination. They were ballistically matched to Oswald's rifle (CE139).

== QUOTE ==

Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine this bullet to determine whether it had been fired from Exhibit 139 to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - What was your conclusion?
Mr. FRAZIER - This bullet fragment was fired in this rifle, 139.
... 
Mr. EISENBERG - Can we go back a second? I don't think I asked for admission of the bullet fragment which--Mr. Frazier identified. May I have that admitted?
Mr. McCLOY - It may be admitted.
Mr. EISENBERG - The bullet fragment will be 567 and the photograph just identified by Mr. Frazier will be 568.
Mr. McCLOY - It may be admitted.

... 

Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, did you examine this bullet fragment with a view to determining whether it had been fired from the rifle, Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - What was your conclusion?
Mr. FRAZIER - This bullet fragment, Exhibit 569, was fired from this particular rifle, 139.
Mr. EISENBERG - Again to the exclusion of all other rifles?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

== UNQUOTE ==

The bullet that struck Kennedy in the head, therefore, according to the expert testimony, was fired from Oswald's weapon -- to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. 

Hank

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/28/2021 at 2:09 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

Because contempt is the only intellectually honest response to pathological lying.

Same contempt I have for Holocaust deniers.

You certainly do! 

You and Zircoff always have.  I dealt with you guys for years on usenet.  I know your fake-debate routine by heart. 

What pablum! 

Both of you have spent decades ignoring the First Day Evidence.  You haven't earned any one's respect.  Not around here, sonny jim.

Hilarious. Seriously. 

You can't debate the facts so you resort to name-calling. I've seen it a multitude of places, from a multitude of conspiracy believers. They must label me dishonest or a "pathological xxxx" even though I back up my points with citations to the evidence. You call it a "fake-debate routine", but don't explain what is fake about any of it. I'm utilizing the actual evidence to support my conclusions. 

I don't care if you respect me or not, or what names you call me. That's like water off a duck's back to me. But the only one ignoring the evidence is you. I cite the actual testimony from the experts, and you repeat your opinions, which have no value here. 

Hank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/29/2021 at 1:13 AM, James DiEugenio said:

We have neutralized Hank's assertions, since they are based upon quicksand.

One cannot rely on the conclusions of the WR as he is doing. 

 

 

Not once have I cited the Commission's conclusions, other than to compare it to the HSCA's about the source of the shots that struck the victims. Those conclusions were identical. In all other cases, I've cited the testimony to the commission by experts. Expert testimony that supports the conclusion that both the WC and the HSCA reached: Oswald fired all the shots that struck either victim in the car. 

Edited by Hank Sienzant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/27/2021 at 9:18 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

56 other ear witnesses to two or four shots?  Really?

All you can do is cherry pick the evidence you can fake debate about while ignoring the proven fact JFK was shot from two directions.

Please stop creating straw men to knock down. I said nothing about 56 witnesses to two or four shots. Your argument is not a rebuttal to anything I said. 

I asked:

== quote ==

Weren't there other witnesses who put the first two shots as bunched? Weren't there other witnesses who heard only two shots? Weren't there other witnesses who heard four or more?

Now, tell me how you know these witnesses (whom you neither name nor cite their statements) are the right ones. Start there. Then tell me how these witnesses support anything you're alleging. Make a case, not a Gish Gallop.

== unquote ==

You failed to do any of that. Instead, in defense of your Gish Gallop logical fallacy, you set forth  another logical fallacy, that of a straw man argument, where you rebut something I didn't say and pretend that is adequate. It's not. 

And ignoring that Oswald put himself in the building at the time of the shooting isn't helping your argument any. 

Again, here's the fuller quote:

== QUOTE ==

1st REPORTER : Did you kill the President?

LEE HARVEY OSWALD : No, sir, I didn't. People keep -- [crosstalk ] Sir?

1st REPORTER : Did you shoot the President?

LEE HARVEY OSWALD : I work in that building.

1st REPORTER : Were you in the building at the time?

LEE HARVEY OSWALD : Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir

== UNQUOTE ==

He is asked if he was in the building *at that time* -- and it's evident from the preceding question to Oswald that the question is referencing the time when the President was shot. Oswald claimed he was inside the building at the time the President was shot. He didn't put himself outside on the steps. He put himself inside the building at that time -- at the time the President was shot. The only one avoiding the context is you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/28/2021 at 5:39 AM, James DiEugenio said:

Its almost funny how Hank buys everything that the hsca or WC puts out as long as it incriminates Oswald.

Maybe he wants to add the humdinger about the doctors at Bethesda not seeing the same hole in the rear of the skull that the doctors at Parkland did? I mean why not Hank? Or them not being sure Shaw was in Clinton, when in fact they had classified testimony from the sheriff that he asked Shaw for his DL and it said Clay Shaw?

Greg Parker will show that the rifle in the BYP is 36 inches long.

When Oliver's documentary gets broadcast it will show the same thing in a different way.

 

What I wrote (and cited) was in direct response to your claim:

"... Further, the rifle in the BYP is not the one found at the depository. "

Here's what I wrote:

Quote

 

Well, that's not what the photographic experts working for the HSCA concluded. Why are your claims so often unsourced or from non-experts while I cite the actual expert conclusions?

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0036b.htm

"...A comparison of identifying marks that exist on the rifle as shown that exist in photographs today with marks shown on the photographs taken in 1963 indicates both that the rifle in the archives is the same weapon that Oswald is shown holding in the backyard picture and the same weapon, found by Dallas police, that appears in various postassassination photographs."  

 

Instead of rebutting any of that or even addressing any of that, you simply changed the subject! That's a logical fallacy called a red herring:

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Red-Herring

Quote

 

Red Herring

Ignoratio elenchi

(also known as: beside the point, misdirection [form of], changing the subject, false emphasis, the Chewbacca defense, irrelevant conclusion, irrelevant thesis, clouding the issue, ignorance of refutation)

Description: Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.

 

Now try responding to the point. You claimed the rifle in the Depository was not the same rifle as that in the back yard photos (BYP). I pointed out the experts working for the HSCA disagree with your assessment. This is the point where you provide your evidence to support your claim (not your argument or opinion, your evidence). Got any?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/27/2021 at 10:47 PM, Ron Bulman said:

Back with another blast of 18 posts n 16 hours.  Many long ones.  

What a bizarre criticism.

I post on my schedule, when I have time. You can post on your schedule.

You can read my posts when you have time, and I'll read yours when I have time. 

Deal?

Hank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/28/2021 at 12:37 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

What information is forthcoming from people like you and Joe Zircon who pretend inconvenient evidence doesn't exist?

It's Hank Sienzant, but Joe Zircon works fine. I posted at alt.assassination.jfk for about a decade (starting in 1998) under that alias to honor my wife's wishes. "Joe Zircon" is a play on "Joe Diamond", the name of the person who shot the accused assassin in Richard Condon's novel "Winter Kills". "Joe Diamond" is of course a play on "Jack Ruby", who shot and killed Oswald. 

 

Quote

There is no debate.  It's just nutters in denial of physical reality, among other things.

Absolutely. Our only disagreement is which side has the nutters and which side has the evidence on their side. You'll note in this thread the only one who has been posting evidence is me. You and others have been posting opinion, assertions, and utilizing logical fallacies to attempt to rebut that evidence. 

Let's start with : What did Oswald say when he was asked where he was during the shooting? 

Quote

 

1st REPORTER : Did you kill the President?

LEE HARVEY OSWALD : No, sir, I didn't. People keep -- [crosstalk ] Sir?

1st REPORTER : Did you shoot the President?

LEE HARVEY OSWALD : I work in that building.

1st REPORTER : Were you in the building at the time?

LEE HARVEY OSWALD : Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir

 

Oswald said he was inside the building at the time of the shooting. 

What time do you think the questioner was asking about?

 

Hank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hank is a real case.

He cannot admit the autopsy report has no date on it.  So what does he say? He relies on Humes's testimony.

Well, Humes is the guy who told a tale to that young medical illustrator about the location of the back wound for those humiliating drawings by Mr Rydberg in the WC volumes. Which expose the WR as a farce in and of itself.

Humes is the guy who told another tale about blood on his autopsy papers so he had to burn them.

Humes is the guy who almost walked out of the ARRB deposition, when Jeremy Gunn asked him where that upward particle trail was on the x ray which he described in his report. Why? Because its not there.

As both Doug Horne and Dave Mantik have shown, the report we have today simply cannot be the first one.  The evidence says that it was revised.  As the late Jerry McKnight wrote, this was likely done with Galloway's help AFTER Ruby shot Oswald.  As Jerry demonstrated, there is simply not enough information in the extant notes to apply to the entire document.  The fact that it was made up willy nilly, and this is likely the second or maybe even third draft, explains why, in order to keep the official myth going, the Clark Panel made those radical changes in it.

BTW, if you talk to a criminal lawyer, what Humes did would not fly in a court room. On top of the tall tales, the fact that he burned his notes, and at least the first draft, would eliminate him as a witness. When you add in his professional failure to override the brass in the morgue and dissect the back wound? Plus the failure to dissect the bullet paths in the skull?  From which Kennedy died?  Plus, according to Perry, he was on the phone with him that night trying to get him to change his story.

Besides Hank, who can take Humes seriously as a witness?  He would be obliterated on cross examination. As Finck was in New Orleans.  Except it would be even worse since he was the lead  pathologist. These are the kinds of witnesses Hank relies on, without informing you of their huge liabilities.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/1/2021 at 1:53 PM, Micah Mileto said:

What do you think about the EOP wound? Seems like no matter how the EOP subject is approached, it strongly supports a conspiracy.

Didn't I cover this subject with you in detail on the International Skeptics forum?

You are MicahJava there, are you not?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12325583&postcount=303

Hank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/1/2021 at 3:17 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Hank is a real case.

I'm a real person. Is "case" synonymous with "person" where you come from? 

Or are you just going all ad hominem on me? 

 

Quote

He cannot admit the autopsy report has no date on it.  So what does he say? He relies on Humes's testimony.

I thought I just did, and posted how we know the date. From Humes testimony, which I cited. Who would know the date it was prepared better than he? Doug Horne? 

 

Quote

Well, Humes is the guy who told a tale to that young medical illustrator about the location of the back wound for those humiliating drawings by Mr Rydberg in the WC volumes. Which expose the WR as a farce in and of itself.

As Humes admitted in his testimony, the drawings weren't intended as a substitute for the photographs taken at autopsy. He admitted they were in part schematic because the illustrator wasn't working from the actual photographs, but only Humes verbal description:

== quote ==

Commander HUMES - When appraised of the necessity for our appearance before this Commission, we did not know whether or not the photographs which we had made would be available to the Commission. So to assist in making our testimony more understandable to the Commission members, we decided to have made drawings, schematic drawings, of the situation as we saw it, as we recorded it and as we recall it. These drawings were made under my supervision and that of Dr. Boswell by Mr. Rydberg, whose initials are H. A. He is a hospital corpsman, second class, and a medical illustrator in our command at Naval Medical School.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you provide him with the basic information from which these drawings were made?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - Distances, that sort of thing?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. We had made certain physical measurements of the wounds, and of their position on the body of the late President, and we provided these and supervised directly Mr. Rydberg in making these drawings.
Mr. SPECTER - Have you checked the drawings subsequent to their preparation to verify their accuracy?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - And proportion?
Commander HUMES - I must state these drawings are in part schematic. The artist had but a brief period of some 2 days to prepare these. He had no photographs from which to work, and had to work under our description, verbal description, of what we had observed.

== unquote ==

 

And if you read the transcript of his testimony before the Commission, you can see that Specter is building a case for having the photographs and x-rays in evidence, so much so that Chief Justice Warren has to interject his own question:

== quote ==

Mr. SPECTER - Now as to that last factor, would the X-rays be of material assistance to you in pinpointing the specific locale of the exit?
Commander HUMES - I do not believe so, sir. The only path that the X-rays show in any detail are of the minor fragments which passed from point A to point B.
Mr. SPECTER - Now that you have finished your major descriptions of the wounds, can you be any more specific in telling us in what way the availability of the x-rays would assist in further specifying the nature of the wounds?
Commander HUMES - I do not believe, sir, that the availability of the X-rays would materially assist the Commission.
Mr. SPECTER - How about the same question as to the pictures?
Commander HUMES - The pictures would show more accurately and in more detail the character of the wounds as depicted particularly in 385 and 386 and in 388-A. They would also perhaps give the Commissioners a better---- better is not the best term, but a more graphic picture of the massive defect in 388.
Mr. SPECTER - Going back for a moment, Doctor Humes---
The CHAIRMAN. Before we get off that, may I ask you this, Commander: If we had the pictures here and you could look them over again and restate your opinion, would it cause you to change any of the testimony you have given here?
Commander HUMES - To the best of my recollection, Mr. Chief Justice, it would not.

== unquote ==

 

Quote

Humes is the guy who told another tale about blood on his autopsy papers so he had to burn them.

If there was anything nefarious going on, why would he admit that? Why not just rewrite the autopsy papers and claim *these* are the originals? Why admit to burning anything if there's a cover-up of any kind in place? 

 

Quote

Humes is the guy who almost walked out of the ARRB deposition, when Jeremy Gunn asked him where that upward particle trail was on the x ray which he described in his report. Why? Because its not there.

I see a particle trail in the x-ray that travels from back to front. Gunn didn't?

 

Quote

As both Doug Horne and Dave Mantik have shown, the report we have today simply cannot be the first one.  The evidence says that it was revised.  As the late Jerry McKnight wrote, this was likely done with Galloway's help AFTER Ruby shot Oswald.  As Jerry demonstrated, there is simply not enough information in the extant notes to apply to the entire document.  The fact that it was made up willy nilly, and this is likely the second or maybe even third draft, explains why, in order to keep the official myth going, the Clark Panel made those radical changes in it.

What did the HSCA photographic panel conclude of the photos and x-rays? That those photos and x-rays were legitimate.

What did the HSCA medical panel (with over 100,000 autopsies conducted between them) conclude from the extant autopsy evidence? That JFK was struck twice, both times from behind. 

Why is it that I keep citing the legitimate experts in this case and you keep telling me why all the experts were wrong? Have Doug Horne, Dave Mantik, or Jerry McKnight ever conduct even one autopsy? 

 

Quote

BTW, if you talk to a criminal lawyer, what Humes did would not fly in a court room.

What did he do that would get his testimony excluded? It wouldn't. If what he did was so bad, the defense would love to cross-examine him. 

 

Quote

On top of the tall tales, the fact that he burned his notes, and at least the first draft, would eliminate him as a witness.

How so? Please cite for this. 

 

Quote

When you add in his professional failure to override the brass in the morgue and dissect the back wound? Plus the failure to dissect the bullet paths in the skull?  From which Kennedy died? 

Humes explained why he didn't dissect the bullet path in the skull at autopsy. And did go on in his testimony to describe the supplemental examination.

== quote ==

Commander HUMES - Exhibit 391 is listed as a supplementary report on the autopsy of the late President Kennedy, and was prepared some days after the examination.
This delay necessitated by, primarily, our desire to have the brain better fixed with formaldehyde before we proceeded further with the examination of the brain which is a standard means of approach to study of the brain.
The brain in its fresh state does not lend itself well to examination.
From my notes of the examination, at the time of the post-mortem examination, we noted that clearly visible in the large skull defect and exuding from it was lacerated brain tissue which, on close inspection proved to represent the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere.
We also noted at this point that the flocculus cerebri was extensively lacerated and that the superior sagittal sinus which is a venous blood containing channel in the top of the meninges was also lacerated.
To continue to answer your question with regard to the damage of the brain, following the formal infixation, Dr. Boswell, Dr. Finck and I convened to examine the brain in this state.
We also prepared photographs of the brain from several aspects to depict the extent of these injuries.
We found that the right cerebral hemisphere was markedly disrupted. There was a longitudinal laceration of the right hemisphere which was parasagittal in position. By the saggital plane, as you may know, is a plane in the midline which would divide the brain into right and left halves. This laceration was parasagittal. It was situated approximately 2.5 cm. to the right of the midline, and extended from the tip of occipital lobe, which is the posterior portion of the brain, to the tip of the frontal lobe which is the most anterior portion of the brain, and it extended from the top down to the substance of the brain a distance of approximately 5 or 6 cm.
The base of the laceration was situated approximately 4.5 cm. below the vertex in the white matter. By the vertex we mean--the highest point on the skull is referred to as the vertex.
The area in which the greatest loss of brain substance was particularly in the parietal lobe, which is the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere.
The margins of this laceration at all points were jagged and irregular, with additional lacerations extending in varying directions and for varying distances from the main laceration.
In addition, there was a laceration of the corpus callosum which is a body of fibers which connects the two hemispheres of the brain to each other, which extended from the posterior to the anterior portion of this structure, that is the corpus callosum. Exposed in this laceration were portions of the ventricular system in which the spinal fluid normally is disposed within the brain.
When viewed from above the left cerebral hemisphere was intact. There was engorgement of blood vessels in the meninges covering the brain. We note that the gyri and sulci, which are the convolutions of the brain over the left hemisphere were of normal size and distribution.
Those on the right were too fragmented and distorted for satisfactory description.
When the brain was turned over and viewed from its basular or inferior aspect, there was found a longitudinal laceration of the mid-brain through the floor of the third ventricle, just behind the optic chiasma and the mammillary bodies.
This laceration partially communicates with an oblique 1.5 cm. tear through the left cerebral peduncle. This is a portion of the brain which connects the higher centers of the brain with the spinal cord which is more concerned with reflex actions.
There were irregular superficial lacerations over the basular or inferior aspects of the left temporal and frontal lobes. We interpret that these later contusions were brought about when the disruptive force of the injury pushed that portion of the brain against the relative intact skull.
This has been described as contre-coup injury in that location.
This, then, I believe, Mr. Specter, are the major points with regard to the President's head wound.

== unquote ==

 

Quote

Plus, according to Perry, he was on the phone with him that night trying to get him to change his story.

Not according to Perry's testimony to the Warren Commission. I see nothing in the below about Humes trying to get him to change his story:

== Quote ==

Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital?
Dr. PERRY - Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - When did that conversation occur?
Dr. PERRY - My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have an independent recollection at this moment as to whether it was on Friday or Saturday?
Dr. PERRY - No, sir; I have thought about it again and the events surrounding that weekend were very kaleidoscopic, and I talked with Dr. Humes on two occasions, separated by a very short interval of, I think it was, 30 minutes or an hour or so, it could have been a little longer.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the medium of your conversation?
Dr. PERRY - Over the telephone.
Mr. SPECTER - Did he identify himself to you as Dr. Humes of Bethesda?
Dr. PERRY - He did.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you state as specifically as you can recollect the conversation that you first had with him?
Dr. PERRY - He advised me that he could not discuss with me the findings of necropsy, that he had a few questions he would like to clarify. The initial phone call was in relation to my doing a tracheotomy. Since I had made the incision directly through the wound in the neck, it made it difficult for them to ascertain the exact nature of this wound. Of course, that did not occur to me at the time. I did what appeared to me to be medically expedient. And when I informed him that there was a wound there and I suspected an underlying wound of the trachea and even perhaps of the great vessels he advised me that he thought this action was correct and he said he could not relate to me any of the other findings.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you relate to me in lay language what necropsy is?
Dr. PERRY - Autopsy, postmortem examination.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the content of the second conversation which you had with Comdr. Humes, please?
Dr. PERRY - The second conversation was in regard to the placement of the chest tubes for drainage of the chest cavity. And I related to him, as I have to you, the indications that prompted me to advise that this be done at that time.
Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you observe any bruising of the neck muscles of President Kennedy when you were engaged in your operative procedure that you have described?
Dr. PERRY - This bruising, as you describe, would have been obscured by the fact that there was a large amount of blood, hematoma, present in the neck and the mediastinum and hence all the blood tissues were covered by this blood.

== quote ==

 

Quote

Besides Hank, who can take Humes seriously as a witness? 

Yeah, he only conducted the autopsy on the President. Why call him to the stand? 

 

Quote

He would be obliterated on cross examination. As Finck was in New Orleans.  Except it would be even worse since he was the lead  pathologist.

According to what legal experts? You? 

 

Quote

These are the kinds of witnesses Hank relies on, without informing you of their huge liabilities.

Yeah, two of the three medical professionals who conducted the autopsy of the President. We should just skip what they have to say and go right to the conspiracy theorist version of events. It would save us all a great deal of time. 

Hank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...