I'm not sure I follow the Navy hospital report. At first, they are talking about the accidental discharge of a .45 cal. pistol; then they are talking about removing a .22 cal. slug. Why the switch?
Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head.
Warren Commission testimony of Secret Service Agent Clinton J. Hill, 1964
I'm not sure I follow the Navy hospital report. At first, they are talking about the accidental discharge of a .45 cal. pistol; then they are talking about removing a .22 cal. slug. Why the switch?
Bob,
The .45 cal. pistol was regulation, the .22 Derringer was not. They probably were trying to cover for him. He was reprimanded for the .22 "personal" weapon.
I'm not sure I follow the Navy hospital report. At first, they are talking about the accidental discharge of a .45 cal. pistol; then they are talking about removing a .22 cal. slug. Why the switch?
The .45 was Marine issue while the .22 was an unauthorized weapon.... The "trial" for this infraction did not occur until April 1958 with a decision in Oct 1958 that it was "in the line of duty"... y'know, like the STD he got...
It appears they decided that the gun was a .22 and that it was discharged "in the line of duty and not a result of misconduct" Folsom Exhibit 1 p.42 & p.59
Which basically negates the infraction of Article 92, the possession of an unregistered weapon... and turned it into an innocent accident, which required over 2 weeks at the hospital and not a single mention in any adminstrative remarks or comments for that time period.
DJ
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
08-04-2014, 12:54 AM (This post was last modified: 08-04-2014, 02:40 AM by Greg R Parker.)
David Healy Wrote:[quote=Greg R Parker][quote=David Healy][quote=Greg R Parker]
perhaps I do, you're not from down undah, eh? For the record, after nearly 20 years posting to these boards-forums I never discuss medical evidence... soooooo, I'll just classify your posts as just this side of WCR blind wing-nutism... Carry on Greg, have a good one!
David, this has NOTHING to do with the WCR.
The claim has been made that because the mastoidectomy scar was not noted at autopsy, but was noted at exhumation, it is somehow evidence of Two Oswalds. It is no such thing. It is only evidence that what you'd expect to happen, based on medical science, did in fact happen.
Your clueless obsession with claiming this indicates I am somehow supporting the WCR is noted.
Quote:JH: We are still waiting for your conjecture about a gunshot wound to his left elbow, the stitches that were required to close the wound, the .22 slug which he carried in his arm for a week before it was removed, and the separate incision that was made two inches above the wound to dig out the slug, and how those scars had apparently completely disappeared just six years later. This is the wound you called "very superficial."
Quote:GP: I simply haven't looked into the gunshot wound (yet). My remark that it was superficial was from memory. If my memory is wrong, I will acknowledge it. Could you save me some time and point me to the autopsy report? If not, I will get back to you after I locate it.
From the autopsy report: "Over the left arm, below the deltoid there is a transverse 5/8 X 3/4 inch somewhat puckered and irregular scar...Over the medial aspect mid-distal third of the left arm there is a 1 1/4 inch vertical scar with cross-hatching..." http://www.jmasland.com/cat_content.asp?contentid=108These are the scars you claim Rose missed.
Quote: DJAnd finally... when he leaves the Marines... we have the mastoid scar at 1" now, and the scar to his left elbow and hand noted....again, as #39: Identifying Marks...
One would think that when the police are looking for a specific individual, their IDENTIFYING MARKS would be of some importance in proving they had the right person...
If one was to read the autopsy, one might conclude that the person Rose autopsied was NOT the same as this person leaving the military... as none of the surgical marks which Identified him when he entered and left the Marines were noted on his body at the time.... And all the close-up photos of Oswald's autopsy are not available...
1. What part of my previous posts explaining the mastoid scar are you not getting?
2. When were the police specifically looking for Oswald?
3. You don't appear to have actually ever read the autopsy report. The two scars resulting from the "accidental discharge" of a weapon in the Marines are indeed noted in the report.
I'm not sure I follow the Navy hospital report. At first, they are talking about the accidental discharge of a .45 cal. pistol; then they are talking about removing a .22 cal. slug. Why the switch?
The answer is distinctly non-sinister. A little common sense and compassion was shown. The regs banning the personal weapon Oswald had, had only come in a day or two prior to the "accident". Oswald, due to his duties or whereabouts (can't remember which off the top), had not had adequate time to comply.
Greg R Parker Wrote:Bob, ignore me all you want. Though you just proved you can't. What should not be ignored is the message. The scar did not disappear and reappear, nor is there any need for a body switch to explain it. Medical science explains it. That needs to be acknowledged.
Your conjecture about the vanishing mastoidectomy scar is noted.
We are still waiting for your conjecture about a gunshot wound to his left elbow, the stitches that were required to close the wound, the .22 slug which he carried in his arm for a week before it was removed, and the separate incision that was made two inches above the wound to dig out the slug, and how those scars had apparently completely disappeared just six years later. This is the wound you called "very superficial."
Noted, yet not accepted... The Marine Corp forms upon his entry shows a 3" mastoid scar noted specifically as a #39: Identifying Body Marks, Scars, Tatoos
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5864[/ATTACH]
In Folsom Exh #1 page 10 we see administrative remarks jump from May 1957 to April 1958... with nothing to report for the October 27, 1957 discharge of his weapon until the trial which finally takes place in April 1958.
Another interesting piece of history overlooked regarding this gunshot episode... CE1961 tells us that from 10/27/57 (the day of the shooting) Oswald is at the Hospital until Nov 15 - over 2 weeks for this little injury seems a bit long to me... and then for it to have been determined a year later that it is was in the line of duty even though it was also determined (and he was reprimanded) for having a personal weapon... and NOT the .45 issued him.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5863[/ATTACH]
And finally... when he leaves the Marines... we have the mastoid scar at 1" now, and the scar to his left elbow and hand noted....again, as #39: Identifying Marks...
One would think that when the police are looking for a specific individual, their IDENTIFYING MARKS would be of some importance in proving they had the right person...
If one was to read the autopsy, one might conclude that the person Rose autopsied was NOT the same as this person leaving the military... as none of the surgical marks which Identified him when he entered and left the Marines were noted on his body at the time.... And all the close-up photos of Oswald's autopsy are not available...
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5865[/ATTACH]
So what do we have after the Autopsy performed by Dr Rose? No note of a Mastoid scar, no note of the Elbow scar and nothing on his left hand...
All observed visually upon military examination, as opposed to NOT being observed or noted after hours examining the body for an autopsy...
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5866[/ATTACH]
The Report Of Medical Examination indicates that LHO had a Mastoid operation in 1945, but on another thread there is posted evidence that a Mastoid operation was performed in February, 1946. So, it would appear that either a misstatement, a misunderstanding, or an information entry error occurred when the form was processed.
::face.palm::
Greg R Parker Wrote:From the autopsy report: "Over the left arm, below the deltoid there is a transverse 5/8 X 3/4 inch somewhat puckered and irregular scar...Over the medial aspect mid-distal third of the left arm there is a 1 1/4 inch vertical scar with cross-hatching..." http://www.jmasland.com/cat_content.asp?contentid=108These are the scars you claim Rose missed.
Nice try, but the "1 1/4 inch vertical scar with cross-hatching" is on the left wrist, where Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald slit it, probably after discovering the Russians weren't buying the spy routine he'd been setting up for more than a decade.
Greg R Parker Wrote:From the autopsy report: "Over the left arm, below the deltoid there is a transverse 5/8 X 3/4 inch somewhat puckered and irregular scar...Over the medial aspect mid-distal third of the left arm there is a 1 1/4 inch vertical scar with cross-hatching..." http://www.jmasland.com/cat_content.asp?contentid=108These are the scars you claim Rose missed.
John Armstrong spent nearly twenty years researching and writing Harvey and Lee. Critics who want to make wild accusations about the validity of his work ought to at least do a little bit of homework. They ought to at least understand what they are talking about. At the very minimum, they ought to at least find out where "the medial aspect mid-distal third of the left arm" is located before assuming, incorrectly, it is near the elbow.
Here is an FBI report by agents who obviously talked to Dr. Rose and talked about two different scars on the wrist, including the scar Greg Parker thought (hoped, prayed) was slightly above the elbow. This report is available at the online John Armstrong library at Baylor University. Check it out sometime.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5876[/ATTACH]
Please, folks, before wildly attacking John Armstrong's work, please at least have the decency to look at some of his sources. He's made them freely available for all. What more can he possibly do for you?
