02-05-2013, 01:12 AM
David
Interesting observation from your #12 above:
Mr. Rankin. That is what they first said
And we all know that what was FIRST SAID, if it made the LN case against Oswald impossible, was summarily changed.
This passage does not exist in the EXISTING AUTOPSY REPORT.
Humes burned a draft and a first version per Horne's analysis.
AARB's treatment of Humes should've extended to enhanced interrogation--his insolent defiance was poor cover for the continuing lie. The nonexistent occipital inshoot had to be moved up four inches/ten centimeters to account for the fragment trail emanating from a temple inshoot.
Regarding: there was a very small caliber shot to the throat with a bullet lodged in his neck
Perry and others were clear the nature of the throat wound. Such description was fatal to the Big Lie; Elmer Moore badgered Perry all Friday night. Later Specter and Dulles would pile on.
The question "where would such a bullet have gone" was addressed by Custer to Gunn and Horne:
BEGIN EXCERPT
[FONT=&]Douglas Horne, Inside the Assassinations Record Review Board, Volume II, Chapter Five: The Autopsy X-Rays, pages 530-2:[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer Examines the X-Rays of the Body[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The noteworthy highlights of Custer's review of the x-rays of the body was Jeremy's attempt to see whether Custer could identify metal fragments near any of the cervical vertebrae, which Custer had mentioned earlier in the deposition.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Jeremy showed Custer x-ray no. 9, a view of the chest prior to removal of the lungs, and the exchange went as follows:[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: Previously, you referred to there being metal fragments in the cervical area. Are you able to identify any metal fragments in this x-ray?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: Not in this film.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: Does this film include a view or an exposure that would have included such metal fragments?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: No sir.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: Where would the metal fragments be located?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: Further up in there. This region.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: Can youand you're pointing to?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: Up into the, I'd say, C3/C4 region.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Jeremy asked Custer to review x-rays no. 8 and 10, of the right shoulder and chest, and left shoulder and chest, respectivelyboth are images following the removal of the heart and lungs. Custer could not identify metal fragments in either x-ray.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Later, Jeremy asked Custer the following questions:[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: Now, you had raised, previously in the deposition. . .the possibility of some metal fragments in the C3/C4 range.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: I noticed I didn't see that.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: You didn't see any x-rays that would be inthat would include the C3/C4 area?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: No sir.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: Are you certain that you took x-rays that included theincluded C3 and C4?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: Yes, sir. Absolutely.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: How many x-rays did you take that would have included that?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: Just one. And that was all that was necessary, because it showedright there.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: And what, as best you recall, did it show?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: A fragmentation of a shell in and around that circular exitthat area. Let me rephrase that. I don't want to say "exit," because I don't know whether it was exit or entrance. But all I can say, there was bullet fragmentations [sic] around that areathat opening.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: Around C3/C4?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: Right.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn" And do you recall how many fragments there were?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: Not really. There was enough. It was very prevalent.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: Did anyone make any observations about metal fragments in the C3/C4 area?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: I did. And I was told to mind my own business. That's where I was shut down again.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: You have, during the course of this deposition, identified three x-rays that you are quite certain that you took, but don't appear in this collection. Are there any others that you can identify as not being included?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: That's the only three that come to my mind right now; the two tangential views, and the A-P cervical spine.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: Okay.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: Can I add something to that?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: Sure.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: In my own opinion, I do believe, basically, the reason why they are not here is because they showed massive amounts of bullet fragments.[/FONT]
END EXCERPT
Humes initially stated the back wound coursed down at a steep angle, ended shallowly. Then a call regarding a bullet in the lost and found led him to posit it was dislodged in resuscitation. Later the lungs were removed and a direct line to Hoover's office was installed through the pleural membrane.
Pronunciamentos of Humes, Boswell and Finck are based upon a priori conclusions delivered by superior officers.
Then we have Gerald Ford whose Portrait of the Assassin features the Ronco Moveable Wound.
Effort and consternation but no track: http://www.realhistoryarchives.com/colle...ebulls.htm
Interesting observation from your #12 above:
Mr. Rankin. That is what they first said
And we all know that what was FIRST SAID, if it made the LN case against Oswald impossible, was summarily changed.
This passage does not exist in the EXISTING AUTOPSY REPORT.
Humes burned a draft and a first version per Horne's analysis.
AARB's treatment of Humes should've extended to enhanced interrogation--his insolent defiance was poor cover for the continuing lie. The nonexistent occipital inshoot had to be moved up four inches/ten centimeters to account for the fragment trail emanating from a temple inshoot.
Regarding: there was a very small caliber shot to the throat with a bullet lodged in his neck
Perry and others were clear the nature of the throat wound. Such description was fatal to the Big Lie; Elmer Moore badgered Perry all Friday night. Later Specter and Dulles would pile on.
The question "where would such a bullet have gone" was addressed by Custer to Gunn and Horne:
BEGIN EXCERPT
[FONT=&]Douglas Horne, Inside the Assassinations Record Review Board, Volume II, Chapter Five: The Autopsy X-Rays, pages 530-2:[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer Examines the X-Rays of the Body[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The noteworthy highlights of Custer's review of the x-rays of the body was Jeremy's attempt to see whether Custer could identify metal fragments near any of the cervical vertebrae, which Custer had mentioned earlier in the deposition.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Jeremy showed Custer x-ray no. 9, a view of the chest prior to removal of the lungs, and the exchange went as follows:[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: Previously, you referred to there being metal fragments in the cervical area. Are you able to identify any metal fragments in this x-ray?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: Not in this film.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: Does this film include a view or an exposure that would have included such metal fragments?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: No sir.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: Where would the metal fragments be located?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: Further up in there. This region.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: Can youand you're pointing to?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: Up into the, I'd say, C3/C4 region.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Jeremy asked Custer to review x-rays no. 8 and 10, of the right shoulder and chest, and left shoulder and chest, respectivelyboth are images following the removal of the heart and lungs. Custer could not identify metal fragments in either x-ray.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Later, Jeremy asked Custer the following questions:[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: Now, you had raised, previously in the deposition. . .the possibility of some metal fragments in the C3/C4 range.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: I noticed I didn't see that.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: You didn't see any x-rays that would be inthat would include the C3/C4 area?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: No sir.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: Are you certain that you took x-rays that included theincluded C3 and C4?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: Yes, sir. Absolutely.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: How many x-rays did you take that would have included that?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: Just one. And that was all that was necessary, because it showedright there.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: And what, as best you recall, did it show?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: A fragmentation of a shell in and around that circular exitthat area. Let me rephrase that. I don't want to say "exit," because I don't know whether it was exit or entrance. But all I can say, there was bullet fragmentations [sic] around that areathat opening.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: Around C3/C4?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: Right.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn" And do you recall how many fragments there were?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: Not really. There was enough. It was very prevalent.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: Did anyone make any observations about metal fragments in the C3/C4 area?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: I did. And I was told to mind my own business. That's where I was shut down again.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: You have, during the course of this deposition, identified three x-rays that you are quite certain that you took, but don't appear in this collection. Are there any others that you can identify as not being included?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: That's the only three that come to my mind right now; the two tangential views, and the A-P cervical spine.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: Okay.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: Can I add something to that?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gunn: Sure.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Custer: In my own opinion, I do believe, basically, the reason why they are not here is because they showed massive amounts of bullet fragments.[/FONT]
END EXCERPT
Humes initially stated the back wound coursed down at a steep angle, ended shallowly. Then a call regarding a bullet in the lost and found led him to posit it was dislodged in resuscitation. Later the lungs were removed and a direct line to Hoover's office was installed through the pleural membrane.
Pronunciamentos of Humes, Boswell and Finck are based upon a priori conclusions delivered by superior officers.
Then we have Gerald Ford whose Portrait of the Assassin features the Ronco Moveable Wound.
Effort and consternation but no track: http://www.realhistoryarchives.com/colle...ebulls.htm