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?
The scar from the USSR incident is noted separately... "volar aspect of the left wrist there is a transverse 1 3/4 slightly raised white scar." You were saying about reading sources? http://www.jmasland.com/cat_content.asp?contentid=108
The report probably should have stated that the other scar may have "also" been associated with the suicide attempt. Oswald received stitches for his self-inflicted wound in the Moscow hospital. What else could the "cross-hatching" possibly be?
08-04-2014, 09:44 PM (This post was last modified: 08-04-2014, 10:39 PM by Greg R Parker.)
Jim Hargrove Wrote:The report probably should have stated that the other scar may have "also" been associated with the suicide attempt. Oswald received stitches for his self-inflicted wound in the Moscow hospital. What else could the "cross-hatching" possibly be?
Have you found the elbow bullet scar yet?
The report PROBABLY should have stated...? ROFL What else could the cross-hatching be? ROFL again. Comedy gold, Jim, comedy gold.
The two scars I pointed to originally are the two scars from the self-inflicted gunshot wound.
I pointed to it earlier from Roses report. So for the second time... 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."
Quote:JH: They ought to at least understand what they are talking about.
Quote:JH: Nice try, but the "1 1/4 inch vertical scar with cross-hatching" is on the left wrist,
Try again, this time with your first quote in mind. The medial aspect mid-distal third of the left arm is NOT the wrist.
Comedy indeed. Read the third paragraph below from the agents who interviewed Earl Rose:
The third paragraph reads (my emphasis):
Another scar on the left wrist is recorded at the end of the first paragraph, page 2, lines 19 and 20, which is described as a vertical 1 1/4 inch scar with cross-hatching over the medial aspect of the mid-distal third of the left arm.
I've highlighted the paragraph so you can see it. Note the part that refers to "another scar on the left wrist" and "medial aspect of the mid-distal third of the left arm."
Parker's position seems to be that the gunshot wound to Oswald's left arm was actually to his wrist, although USMC medics mistook the position for just above the elbow. That's some heavy-duty research!
Quote:JH: They ought to at least understand what they are talking about.
Quote:JH: Nice try, but the "1 1/4 inch vertical scar with cross-hatching" is on the left wrist,
Try again, this time with your first quote in mind. The medial aspect mid-distal third of the left arm is NOT the wrist.
Comedy indeed. Read the third paragraph below from the agents who interviewed Earl Rose:
The third paragraph reads (my emphasis):
Another scar on the left wrist is recorded at the end of the first paragraph, page 2, lines 19 and 20, which is described as a vertical 1 1/4 inch scar with cross-hatching over the medial aspect of the mid-distal third of the left arm.
I've highlighted the paragraph so you can see it. Note the part that refers to "another scar on the left wrist" and "medial aspect of the mid-distal third of the left arm."
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5877[/ATTACH]
No doubt about your propensity to believe the FBI when you think it suits your argument... but despite what this FBI report says about the wrist, the actual autopsy report does not mention it in relation to this scar.There is a reason for that. The medial aspect of the mid-distal third of the left arm is NOT the wrist.
09-04-2014, 05:47 PM (This post was last modified: 09-04-2014, 06:35 PM by Jim Hargrove.)
Greg R Parker Wrote:No doubt about your propensity to believe the FBI when you think it suits your argument... but despite what this FBI report says about the wrist, the actual autopsy report does not mention it in relation to this scar.There is a reason for that. The medial aspect of the mid-distal third of the left arm is NOT the wrist.
No sleight-of-hand can make this description describe a gunshot wound "just above the elbow" as Marine medics described it.
Online Merriam-Webster defines "distal" as: "situated away from the point of attachment or origin or a central point especially of the body compare proximal." [proximal is nearest the point of attachment].
If you divide the arm into thirds, with the "distal" being the third farthest away from the point of attachment (the shoulder) "mid-distal third" of the left arm sure sounds near the wrist to me, but, quite obviously, it is not "just above the elbow," as the medics described the gunshot wound.
Are you seriously going to try to make the case that "mid-distal third of the left arm" refers to "just above the elbow."
As for believing FBI reports or not, it is always a question of motive. Was there a reason to lie? Not in this case. The FBI would surely have preferred your version, instead of indicating it was a wrist wound.
Greg R Parker Wrote:No doubt about your propensity to believe the FBI when you think it suits your argument... but despite what this FBI report says about the wrist, the actual autopsy report does not mention it in relation to this scar.There is a reason for that. The medial aspect of the mid-distal third of the left arm is NOT the wrist.
No sleight-of-hand can make this description describe a gunshot wound "just above the elbow" as Marine medics described it.
Online Merriam-Webster defines "distal" as: "situated away from the point of attachment or origin or a central point especially of the body compare proximal." [proximal is nearest the point of attachment].
If you divide the arm into thirds, with the "distal" being the third farthest away from the point of attachment (the shoulder) "mid-distal third" of the left arm sure sounds near the wrist to me, but, quite obviously, it is not "just above the elbow," as the medics described the gunshot wound.
Are you seriously going to try to make the case that "mid-distal third of the left arm" refers to "just above the elbow."
As for believing FBI reports or not, it is always a question of motive. Was there a reason to lie? Not in this case. The FBI would surely have preferred your version, instead of indicating it was a wrist wound.
Your problem is in insisting records are never wrong for benign reasons. But here, you are simply adding to the confusion they already caused. The wound just above the elbow was not the wound of entry. It was where the bullet was removed. The one we are talking about is the entrance wound.
