John Connally's Wrist Wound Bullet Direction Changed In Medical Diagrams

https://postimg.cc/QBWy6xKs

Just another coincidence? Don't be silly. Connally was also shot from the front.

Gil Jesus

2023-12-08 10:44:15 UTC

Post by NoTrueFlags Here
https://postimg.cc/QBWy6xKs
Just another coincidence? Don't be silly. Connally was also shot from the front.

True dat.

The Warren Commission changed Dr. Gregory's descriptions of the wrist wounds to hide the fact that CE 399 was not the bullet that caused them.
Loading Image...

Dr. Charles Gregory, who operated on the wrist, testified that the bullet entered on the dorsal side ( back side ) of the wrist and exited the volar side ( palm side ).
Loading Image...

For this to have been a shot from behind, the back of Connally's hand would have had to have been facing him when he was struck.
The Zapruder film shows no such position of the wrist.
Loading Image...

Even the Warren Report had to admit that Dr. Gregory, "observed a linear perforating wound" that was located on " the back of his ( Connally's ) arm" that was, "the point of entry because thread and cloth had been carried into the wound to the region of the bone. ( pg. 93 )

There's no evidence that the bullet entered on the palm side of the wrist and exited the dorsal side as required by the Single Bullshit Theory.

By changing Dr. Gregory's descriptions, they changed the direction of the bullet that struck the wrist from front-to-rear to rear-to-front.

JE Corbett

2023-12-08 11:26:28 UTC

Post by NoTrueFlags Here
https://postimg.cc/QBWy6xKs
Just another coincidence? Don't be silly. Connally was also shot from the front.

True dat.
The Warren Commission changed Dr. Gregory's descriptions of the wrist wounds to hide the fact that CE 399 was not the bullet that caused them.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/body-diagrams-comparison.png
Dr. Charles Gregory, who operated on the wrist, testified that the bullet entered on the dorsal side ( back side ) of the wrist and exited the volar side ( palm side ).
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/WC_Vol4_118_119-dr-gregory-wrist-wound.gif
For this to have been a shot from behind, the back of Connally's hand would have had to have been facing him when he was struck.
The Zapruder film shows no such position of the wrist.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/z230.png
Even the Warren Report had to admit that Dr. Gregory, "observed a linear perforating wound" that was located on " the back of his ( Connally's ) arm" that was, "the point of entry because thread and cloth had been carried into the wound to the region of the bone. ( pg. 93 )
There's no evidence that the bullet entered on the palm side of the wrist and exited the dorsal side as required by the Single Bullshit Theory.
By changing Dr. Gregory's descriptions, they changed the direction of the bullet that struck the wrist from front-to-rear to rear-to-front.

Oh, Goody. The assclowns are playing doctor again. How about a cite where the WC states the bullet entered on the palm
side of the wrist. It is not possible for the bullet that struck Connally's wrist to have come from in front. His wrist was struck
while he was holding his hat in his lap, well below the top of side of the car. The shot had to come from an elevated
position and there was no position in front of the limo that would have provided a line of fire into Connally's wrist. Do you
guys ever think things out before you bother posting them?

Gil Jesus

2023-12-08 12:31:32 UTC

On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 6:26:30 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
< more stupid comments and insults from an idiot >

Says the guy who doesn't believe the Dallas doctors who SAW the hole in the throat and described it as a wound of entry,
but believes the autopsists who never saw the hole.

Talk about an assclown.

JE Corbett

2023-12-08 14:02:35 UTC

Post by Gil Jesus
< more stupid comments and insults from an idiot >
Says the guy who doesn't believe the Dallas doctors who SAW the hole in the throat and described it as a wound of entry,
but believes the autopsists who never saw the hole.
That's because the prosectors saw the trail of tissue damage the led from the entry wound on the back directly to the

incision in the throat and weren't as dumb as you.

Gil Jesus

2023-12-08 14:23:52 UTC

That's because the prosectors saw the trail of tissue damage the led from the entry wound on the back directly to the incision in the throat

Source ?

JE Corbett

2023-12-08 15:02:58 UTC

That's because the prosectors saw the trail of tissue damage the led from the entry wound on the back directly to the incision in the throat

Source ?

I gave you the source in another thread, Giltardo. Did you bother to read it. Here it is again:

https://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Other/kennedy,%20john_report.pdf

Can you read or do you need an audio book of it? The description of the trail of tissue damage begins at the last sentence
on page 4 and continues through to page 6. It's a quick read and very informative.

Gil Jesus

2023-12-08 15:21:58 UTC

Post by JE Corbett
The description of the trail of tissue damage begins at the last sentence
on page 4 and continues through to page 6. It's a quick read and very informative.

You mean where it says that the missile path, "cannot be easily probed" ?
You mean where it says that the wound described by Dr. Perry was "presumably of exit " ?

THAT autopsy report ?

Where in that autopsy report does it say that they missed the bullet hole in the throat and didn't find out about it until the next day ?

JE Corbett

2023-12-08 16:31:38 UTC

Post by JE Corbett
The description of the trail of tissue damage begins at the last sentence
on page 4 and continues through to page 6. It's a quick read and very informative.

You mean where it says that the missile path, "cannot be easily probed" ?

I suppose it never entered that pinhead of yours that there are other ways of determining a bullet path other than a probe.
In this case, they removed the organs from the chest cavity and observed the tissue damage and saw the trail of damage
that led from the back entrance to the throat exit.

Post by Gil Jesus
You mean where it says that the wound described by Dr. Perry was "presumably of exit " ?

Yes, when you see an entrance wound, a line of tissue damage leading from that wound, to a wound in the throat, it's safe
to presume that is where the bullet exited since it was no longer in the body. This isn't rocket science. This is adding 2 + 2
and presuming the answer is 4.

Post by Gil Jesus
THAT autopsy report ?
Where in that autopsy report does it say that they missed the bullet hole in the throat and didn't find out about it until the next day ?

Christ, do you need everything spelled out for you.

Ben Holmes

2023-12-08 16:45:47 UTC

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 08:31:38 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

Post by JE Corbett
The description of the trail of tissue damage begins at the last sentence
on page 4 and continues through to page 6. It's a quick read and very informative.

You mean where it says that the missile path, "cannot be easily probed" ?

I suppose it never entered that pinhead of yours that there are
other ways of determining a bullet path other than a probe.

You suppose wrong. Moron, aren't you?

Post by JE Corbett
In this case, they removed the organs from the chest cavity

It's clear that you read my refutation of your previous lie, but now
you whine about something that has *NOTHING* to do with a track that
was ABOVE the organs removed.

Post by JE Corbett
and observed the tissue damage and saw the trail of damage
that led from the back entrance to the throat exit.

There you go again, pretending information that you don't have. HOW
DID *YOU* DETERMINE DIRECTION OF THIS ALLEGED TRACK?

You can't answer.

You're a coward.

Post by Gil Jesus
You mean where it says that the wound described by Dr. Perry was "presumably of exit " ?

Sadly for what limited intelligence you may have, the throat wound was
an entrance wound. And your alleged "track" must have been going
UPWARD, since the back wound is lower than the throat wound.

Post by Gil Jesus
THAT autopsy report ?
Where in that autopsy report does it say that they missed the bullet hole in the throat and didn't find out about it until the next day ?

Christ, do you need everything spelled out for you.

Nah, we're merely forcing *YOU* to publicly acknowledge facts that we
already know and understand.

But you couldn't do it, could you?

Such a coward!!!

Gil Jesus

2023-12-08 16:50:57 UTC

In this case, they removed the organs from the chest cavity and observed the tissue damage and saw the trail of damage that led from the back entrance to the throat exit.

So in other words, I could gut you like a fish, stick a probe up your ass and make it come out your mouth.
What would that prove ?
That your mouth was a wound of exit ?
SMH

JE Corbett

2023-12-08 20:09:57 UTC

In this case, they removed the organs from the chest cavity and observed the tissue damage and saw the trail of damage that led from the back entrance to the throat exit.

So in other words, I could gut you like a fish, stick a probe up your ass and make it come out your mouth.

If the probe was long enough, probably so.

Post by Gil Jesus
What would that prove ?

Nothing, which is why there are better ways of determine a bullet track than using a probe.

Post by Gil Jesus
That your mouth was a wound of exit ?

I find it creepy you would want to stick a probe up my ass.

Your fetishes seem to be another be another way of diverting conversations away from issues you'd rather not discuss
because they are difficult to square with what you would like to believe.

Ben Holmes

2023-12-11 15:21:38 UTC

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 12:09:57 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

In this case, they removed the organs from the chest cavity and observed the tissue damage and saw the trail of damage that led from the back entrance to the throat exit.

So in other words, I could gut you like a fish, stick a probe up your ass and make it come out your mouth.

If the probe was long enough, probably so.

Good to see you agree with facts...

Post by Gil Jesus
What would that prove ?

Nothing, which is why there are better ways of determine a bullet track than using a probe.

Tell that to the medical practice, which routinely uses probes.

This is a perfect example of the Dunning Kruger effect.

Post by Gil Jesus
That your mouth was a wound of exit ?

I find it creepy you would want to stick a probe up my ass.

I find it creepy that you'd enjoy such an act.

And amusingly, you missed the point.

Gil Jesus

2023-12-08 16:54:30 UTC

Post by JE Corbett
I suppose it never entered that pinhead of yours that there are other ways of determining a bullet path other than a probe.

Source ?

JE Corbett

2023-12-08 20:18:06 UTC

Post by JE Corbett
I suppose it never entered that pinhead of yours that there are other ways of determining a bullet path other than a probe.

Source ?

How about the autopsy report which I have already posted for you twice which explains how the pathologists were able to
find the bullet track without using a probe.

You might want to check Finck's Clay Shaw trial testimony which explains why using a probe can create a false channel in
soft tissue.

Q: Did you attempt to probe this wound in the back of the neck?
A: I did.
Q: With what?
A: With an autopsy room probe, and I did not succeed in probing from the entry in the back of the neck in any direction and I can explain this. This was due to the contraction of muscles preventing the passage of an instrument, and if I had forced the probe through the neck I may have created a false passage.
Q: Isn't this good enough reason to you as a pathologist to go further and dissect this area in an attempt to ascertain whether or not there is a passageway here as a result of a bullet?
A: I did not consider a dissection of the path.
Q: How far did the probe go into the back of the neck?
A: Repeat the question.
Q: How far did the probe go into this wound?
A: I couldn't introduce this probe for any extended depth. I tried and I can give explanations why. At times you cannot probe a path, this is because of the contraction of muscles and different layers. It is not like a pipe, like a channel. It may be extremely difficult to probe a wound through muscle.
Q: Can you give me approximately how far in this probe went?
A: The first fraction of an inch.

The probe could only go in a fraction of an inch. Are we supposed to believe that indicates the bullet only went in a fraction
of an inch or does it make more sense to believe the bullet traveled much deeper than the probe could go?

Gil Jesus

2023-12-08 20:38:28 UTC

How about the autopsy report which I have already posted for you twice which explains how the pathologists were able to find the bullet track without using a probe.

How about this ? How abaout that ?
We're talking about Connally's wrist wound.
Please try to keep up.

JE Corbett

2023-12-08 20:52:08 UTC

How about the autopsy report which I have already posted for you twice which explains how the pathologists were able to find the bullet track without using a probe.

How about this ? How abaout that ?
We're talking about Connally's wrist wound.
Please try to keep up.

You conveniently ignore the fact that it was YOU who introduced the back/throat wound into the conversation in your second
post in this thread which Google Groups has time stamped at 7:31am. Now you chastise me because I responded to your
inane comment regarding that wound.

It's there for everybody to see, Giltardo. Once again you have made a complete fool of yourself because you can't remember
your own bullshit.

Ben Holmes

2023-12-11 15:21:38 UTC

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 12:52:08 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

How about the autopsy report which I have already posted for you twice which explains how the pathologists were able to find the bullet track without using a probe.

How about this ? How abaout that ?
We're talking about Connally's wrist wound.
Please try to keep up.

You conveniently ignore...

The facts Gil is posting...

This is why you refuse to debate.

You can't.

Ben Holmes

2023-12-11 15:21:38 UTC

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 12:38:28 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

How about the autopsy report which I have already posted for you twice which explains how the pathologists were able to find the bullet track without using a probe.

How about this ? How abaout that ?
We're talking about Connally's wrist wound.
Please try to keep up.

He can't... you're citing facts.

Ben Holmes

2023-12-09 18:39:48 UTC

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 12:18:06 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

Post by JE Corbett
I suppose it never entered that pinhead of yours that there are other ways of determining a bullet path other than a probe.

Source ?

How about the autopsy report which I have already posted for you twice which explains how the pathologists were able to
find the bullet track without using a probe.

No, speculation is not a legitmate medical means of proving anything.
Never has been, never will be.

Post by JE Corbett
You might want to check Finck's Clay Shaw trial testimony which explains why using a probe can create a false channel in
soft tissue.

How did he know this?

Could it be that using a probe is a standard medical practice?

Post by JE Corbett
The probe could only go in a fraction of an inch. Are we supposed to believe that indicates the bullet only went in a fraction
of an inch or does it make more sense to believe the bullet traveled much deeper than the probe could go?

Speculation is not science... nor evidence.

Bud

2023-12-09 20:04:08 UTC

Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 12:18:06 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

Post by JE Corbett
I suppose it never entered that pinhead of yours that there are other ways of determining a bullet path other than a probe.

Source ?

How about the autopsy report which I have already posted for you twice which explains how the pathologists were able to
find the bullet track without using a probe.

No, speculation is not a legitmate medical means of proving anything.

Applying reason to information is how thinking people are able to figure things out.

Post by Ben Holmes
Never has been, never will be.

Post by JE Corbett
You might want to check Finck's Clay Shaw trial testimony which explains why using a probe can create a false channel in
soft tissue.

How did he know this?

He was an expert in the relevant field.

Post by Ben Holmes
Could it be that using a probe is a standard medical practice?

Get back to us on that.

Post by Ben Holmes

Speculation is not science... nor evidence.

Conspiracy folks try to make thinking out of bounds, that is how they get to the places they do (nowhere).

JE Corbett

2023-12-09 22:26:20 UTC

Post by Bud

Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 12:18:06 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

Post by JE Corbett
I suppose it never entered that pinhead of yours that there are other ways of determining a bullet path other than a probe.

Source ?

How about the autopsy report which I have already posted for you twice which explains how the pathologists were able to
find the bullet track without using a probe.

No, speculation is not a legitmate medical means of proving anything.

Applying reason to information is how thinking people are able to figure things out.

Post by Ben Holmes
Never has been, never will be.

Post by JE Corbett
You might want to check Finck's Clay Shaw trial testimony which explains why using a probe can create a false channel in
soft tissue.

How did he know this?

He was an expert in the relevant field.

Post by Ben Holmes
Could it be that using a probe is a standard medical practice?

Get back to us on that.

Post by Ben Holmes

Speculation is not science... nor evidence.

Conspiracy folks try to make thinking out of bounds, that is how they get to the places they do (nowhere).

Once again, Bud tells it like it is and does so concisely.

Bud

2023-12-10 01:18:31 UTC

Post by Bud

Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 12:18:06 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

Post by JE Corbett
I suppose it never entered that pinhead of yours that there are other ways of determining a bullet path other than a probe.

Source ?

How about the autopsy report which I have already posted for you twice which explains how the pathologists were able to
find the bullet track without using a probe.

No, speculation is not a legitmate medical means of proving anything.

Applying reason to information is how thinking people are able to figure things out.

Post by Ben Holmes
Never has been, never will be.

Post by JE Corbett
You might want to check Finck's Clay Shaw trial testimony which explains why using a probe can create a false channel in
soft tissue.

How did he know this?

He was an expert in the relevant field.

Post by Ben Holmes
Could it be that using a probe is a standard medical practice?

Get back to us on that.

Post by Ben Holmes

Speculation is not science... nor evidence.

Conspiracy folks try to make thinking out of bounds, that is how they get to the places they do (nowhere).

Once again, Bud tells it like it is and does so concisely.

I try to stay above the fray these days, getting down in the mud only gets me dirty and entertains the pigs.

Take a look at just one of Ben`s utterances...

"No, speculation is not a legitmate medical means of proving anything."

There is a load of dishonesty to unpack in just that one sentence, at least four concepts that he declares without support.

"speculation". The finding of the experts who conducted the forensic examination didn`t "speculate", they gathered information, drew conclusions and published their findings. The doctors at Parkland are the ones who speculated about the throat wound being an exit.

"legitmate" (sp). Who gets to decide how this subjective qualifier is applied? My guess is Ben will appoint himself to that position.

"medical means". The definition of medical is "relating to the science of medicine, or to the treatment of illness and injuries." "medical" went out the window when Kennedy passed, it was forensics turn.

"proving". Who decides when something is proven? Again my guess is that Ben will appoint himself to that position. I can line up experts around the block but that wouldn`t convince someone who doesn`t believe we landed on the moon.

Neither Ben or Gil can discuss ideas to save their lives (and their calls for "debate" are laughable). This is why they employ so many weasel words to obstruct the discussion of ideas, calling reasoning "speculation", demanding "cites" when someone expresses an idea, or "proof", or demand their ideas be "refuted". All to disrupt the application of reason or critical thinking to any issue. If you or I express any kind of reasoning on any issue they go into this same dance, but what you won`t see them do is show that the reasoning they are objecting to is flawed.

Ben Holmes

2023-12-11 14:47:26 UTC

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 17:18:31 -0800 (PST), Bud <***@fast.net>
wrote:

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

Ben Holmes

2023-12-11 15:21:38 UTC

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 14:26:20 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

Post by JE Corbett
Once again, Bud tells it like it is and does so concisely.

Oh?

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

Ben Holmes

2023-12-11 15:21:38 UTC

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 12:04:08 -0800 (PST), Bud <***@fast.net>
wrote:

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

recip...@gmail.com

2023-12-10 00:49:21 UTC

Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 12:18:06 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

Post by JE Corbett
You might want to check Finck's Clay Shaw trial testimony which explains why using a probe can create a false channel in
soft tissue.

How did he know this?
Could it be that using a probe is a standard medical practice?

In the words of Werner Spitz, the former Chief Medical Examiner for Wayne County (i.e Detroit) Michigan, the proper way to determine the wounds track is to "go into the body and follow the trail of Haemorrhage."

JE Corbett

2023-12-10 02:31:50 UTC

Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 12:18:06 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

Post by JE Corbett
You might want to check Finck's Clay Shaw trial testimony which explains why using a probe can create a false channel in
soft tissue.

How did he know this?
Could it be that using a probe is a standard medical practice?

My AI app, which searches numerous online sources then summarizes its findings had this to say about how a wound track
is determined:

"When a bullet enters a body, it creates a wound channel that can be used to determine the bullet’s path. Forensic pathologists use a variety of techniques to determine the bullet’s trajectory, including examining the entry and exit wounds, analyzing the damage to the surrounding tissue, and using X-rays and CT scans to create a 3D image of the bullet’s path.

The forensic pathologist will first examine the entry wound and note its shape and edges. The pathologist will then examine the surrounding tissue to determine the bullet’s path through the body. If the bullet passes through the body, the pathologist will also examine the exit wound to help determine the bullet’s trajectory3.

In addition to examining the wounds, forensic pathologists may also use ballistics, which is the physics of a projectile’s motion, to analyze the trajectory and impact of one or multiple bullets entering the body."

The original autopsy team at first was unaware the bullet had exited and once they learned that, they discovered the exit
wound had been obliterated by the tracheotomy incision. They did follow some of these above procedures to discover he
bullet had passed through the upper torso to the point where the incision had been made so it became a logical conclusion
that the bullet had exited where the tracheotomy incision had been made, a conclusion confirmed by speaking to Dr. Perry on
the phone. The conclusion was based on hard evidence, not speculation nor assumption.

Note that the use of a probe is NOT a standard procedure for determining a bullet track.

Ben Holmes

2023-12-11 15:21:38 UTC

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 18:31:50 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 12:18:06 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

Post by JE Corbett
You might want to check Finck's Clay Shaw trial testimony which explains why using a probe can create a false channel in
soft tissue.

How did he know this?
Could it be that using a probe is a standard medical practice?

My AI app, which searches numerous online sources then summarizes its findings had this to say about how a wound track

And my AI had this to say:

"Using a probe to find the bullet trajectory is a common technique
used in forensics investigations. The probe is inserted into the
bullet hole at an angle and then moved around until it hits the
bullet. The angle of the probe is then measured, and this information
can be used to determine the trajectory of the bullet."

I then asked for citatations, and here are some for you to cry over:

Forensic Pathology by Dominick J. DiMaio and Vincent J.M. DiMaio (3rd
edition, 2001) states that "the path of the bullet can be determined
by inserting a probe through the entrance wound and following it to
the exit wound."

Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and
Forensic Techniques by Vincent J.M. DiMaio (2nd edition, 1998) states
that "the use of a probe is a simple and effective way to determine
the path of a bullet."

Ballistics for the Forensic Scientist by William G. Haag (2nd edition,
1999) states that "the use of a probe is a standard procedure for
determining the path of a bullet."

Practical Forensic Firearms Examination by Mark A. Kebarle and James
L. Thomas (2015) states that "the use of a probe is a common technique
for determining the path of a bullet."

A Guide to Forensic Medicine by William G. Eckert and James T.
Ferrigan (5th edition, 2016) states that "the use of a probe is a
valuable tool for determining the path of a bullet."

You lose.

Ben Holmes

2023-12-08 15:45:32 UTC

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 07:02:58 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

That's because the prosectors saw the trail of tissue damage the led from the entry wound on the back directly to the incision in the throat

Source ?

https://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Other/kennedy,%20john_report.pdf
Can you read or do you need an audio book of it? The description of the trail of tissue damage begins at the last sentence
on page 4 and continues through to page 6. It's a quick read and very informative.

Sorry moron, this doesn't supoort what you claim for it. You'll have
to do better than to cite an Autopsy Report you don't believe.

Ben Holmes

2023-12-08 15:43:39 UTC

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 06:23:52 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

That's because the prosectors saw the trail of tissue damage the led from the entry wound on the back directly to the incision in the throat

Source ?

You cannot cite for a lie.

Gil Jesus

2023-12-08 17:41:21 UTC

Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 06:23:52 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

That's because the prosectors saw the trail of tissue damage the led from the entry wound on the back directly to the incision in the throat

Source ?

You cannot cite for a lie.

Flags' original post was supported by the links to the evidence I posted.
The assholes can't refute that, as usual.
SO they either have to change the subject or attack me.

IMO, Corbett's losing it. He's gotten more vicious with each post.
It's funny how people on our side don't care about what the LNers believe, but they have a problem with what we believe.
So who's the "kook" here ?
The person who believes that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, or the asshole who says, "you have to believe what I believe" ?

Hank Sienzant

2023-12-08 19:08:58 UTC

Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 06:23:52 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

That's because the prosectors saw the trail of tissue damage the led from the entry wound on the back directly to the incision in the throat

Source ?

You cannot cite for a lie.

Flags' original post was supported by the links to the evidence I posted.

No, it was disproven by the links you posted.

Gregory testified the bullet went from the dorsal to the volar (palm) side. You underlined that testimony here:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/WC_Vol4_118_119-dr-gregory-wrist-wound.gif

That means the original document labeling the volar side as “Enter” is wrong. The corrected CD326 shows what Gregory claimed is the correct labelling - the palm side is the exit side.

Gil Jesus

2023-12-08 19:43:26 UTC

Post by Gil Jesus
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/WC_Vol4_118_119-dr-gregory-wrist-wound.gif

That's correct.

Post by Gil Jesus
That means the original document labeling the volar side as “Enter” is wrong. The corrected CD326 shows what Gregory claimed is the correct labelling - the palm side is the exit side.

Also correct.

Now tell us why they published as Commission Exhibit 679 the diagram showing the ENTRANCE ON THE VOLAR ( palm ) SIDE ?
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0181b.htm

Hank Sienzant

2023-12-08 19:55:07 UTC

Post by Gil Jesus
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/WC_Vol4_118_119-dr-gregory-wrist-wound.gif

That's correct.

Also correct.
Now tell us why they published as Commission Exhibit 679 the diagram showing the ENTRANCE ON THE VOLAR ( palm ) SIDE ?
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0181b.htm

Because that’s the one Dr. Charles Gregory lined out the word “Enter” and wrote in with the word “exit” and initialled the change.
On the back view, the word “exit” is drawn through and the word “entrance” written in. In addition, that change is also initialled by Gregory.

You don't see those words written in?

Gil Jesus

2023-12-08 20:40:26 UTC

Post by Hank Sienzant
On the back view, the word “exit” is drawn through and the word “entrance” written in. In addition, that change is also initialled by Gregory.
You don't see those words written in?

Oh, I see them.
I just don't know why they would publish the wrong diagram with pencilled-in corrections on it instead of the correct diagram as seen in CD 326, pg. 4.

Hank Sienzant

2023-12-08 22:42:03 UTC

Oh, I see them.
I just don't know why they would publish the wrong diagram with pencilled-in corrections on it instead of the correct diagram as seen in CD 326, pg. 4.

You deleted the explanation. Your pretense notwithstanding that you didn't see it, here it is again:
Because that’s the one Dr. Charles Gregory lined out the word “Enter” and wrote in with the word “exit” and initialled the change.
On the back view, the word “exit” is drawn through and the word “entrance” written in. In addition, that change is also initialled by Gregory.

That’s why. It's the legal document with the corrections by Dr. Gregory. I thought you knew all about what was admissible and what was not.

Gil Jesus

2023-12-08 23:15:46 UTC

Post by Hank Sienzant
I thought you knew all about what was admissible and what was not.

I'm not more knowledgeable than you, of course. With your vast experience building cases against suspects and degree in the criminal justice field and all the hours you've spent in court.
I cannot stand against such genius.
But at least I don't need my wife's permission to go on line.
ROFLMAO

Hank Sienzant

2023-12-08 23:41:36 UTC

Post by Hank Sienzant
I thought you knew all about what was admissible and what was not.

I'm not more knowledgeable than you, of course.

You claimed to be previously. Which assertion is false?

Post by Gil Jesus
With your vast experience building cases against suspects and degree in the criminal justice field and all the hours you've spent in court.
I cannot stand against such genius.

A logical fallacy called an appeal to ridicule:
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Ridicule

Post by Gil Jesus
But at least I don't need my wife's permission to go on line.

A logical fallacy called a strawman argument:
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Strawman-Fallacy

Post by Gil Jesus
ROFLMAO

You admit by concession and deletion you were wrong to argue the point.

Ben Holmes

2023-12-11 15:21:38 UTC

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 15:41:36 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<***@aol.com> wrote:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

Ben Holmes

2023-12-11 15:21:38 UTC

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 14:42:03 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<***@aol.com> wrote:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

Ben Holmes

2023-12-11 15:21:38 UTC

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 12:40:26 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

On the back view, the word exit is drawn through and the word entrance written in. In addition, that change is also initialled by Gregory.
You don't see those words written in?

Oh, I see them.
I just don't know why they would publish the wrong diagram with pencilled-in corrections on it instead of the correct diagram as seen in CD 326, pg. 4.

I predicted it corrrectly!! Huckster simply ran.

Ben Holmes

2023-12-11 15:21:38 UTC

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 11:55:07 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<***@aol.com> wrote:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

recip...@gmail.com

2023-12-09 16:03:47 UTC

Post by Gil Jesus
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/WC_Vol4_118_119-dr-gregory-wrist-wound.gif

That's correct.

Also correct.
Now tell us why they published as Commission Exhibit 679 the diagram showing the ENTRANCE ON THE VOLAR ( palm ) SIDE ?
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0181b.htm

Probably because they got it from Shaw, who initially thought that the bullet entered the volar side and exited the dorsal side. Then again, Shaw didn't actually do any surgery on the wound. Gregory, who was responsible for the wrist surgery, put the entry on the dorsal side. Gregory conferred with Shaw about it, explaining the reasons why Gregory put the entry on the dorsum, which convinced Shaw that the bullet entered the dorsal side.

Ben Holmes

2023-12-11 15:21:38 UTC

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 11:43:26 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/WC_Vol4_118_119-dr-gregory-wrist-wound.gif

That's correct.

Post by Gil Jesus
That means the original document labeling the volar side as Enter is wrong. The corrected CD326 shows what Gregory claimed is the correct labelling - the palm side is the exit side.

Also correct.
Now tell us why they published as Commission Exhibit 679 the diagram showing the ENTRANCE ON THE VOLAR ( palm ) SIDE ?
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0181b.htm

He won't be able to. I predict he'll evade your question.

Ben Holmes

2023-12-11 15:21:38 UTC

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 11:08:58 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<***@aol.com> wrote:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

JE Corbett

2023-12-08 20:42:39 UTC

Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 06:23:52 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

That's because the prosectors saw the trail of tissue damage the led from the entry wound on the back directly to the incision in the throat

Source ?

You cannot cite for a lie.

Flags' original post was supported by the links to the evidence I posted.
The assholes can't refute that, as usual.
SO they either have to change the subject or attack me.

The two of you have contended the WC changed the direction of the bullet yet neither of you has posted what the WC had to
say about the wrist one. This is how the WC dealt with the wrist wound:

[quote on]
At the time of the shooting, Governor Connally was unaware that he had sustained any injuries other than his chest wounds.213 On the back of his arm, about 2 inches (5 centimeters) above the wrist joint on the thumb side, Dr. Charles F. Gregory observed a linear perforating wound approximately one-fifth of an inch (one-half centimeter) wide and 1 inch (2 1/2 centimeters) long.214 During his operation on this injury, the doctor concluded that this ragged wound was the point of entry because thread and cloth had been carried into the wound to the region of the bone.215 Dr. Gregory's conclusions were also based upon the location in the Governor's wrist, as revealed by X-ray, of small fragments of metal shed by the missile upon striking the firm surface of the bone.216 Evidence of different amounts of air in the tissues of the wrist gave further indication that the bullet passed from the back to the front of the wrist.217 An examination of the palm surface of the wrist showed a wound approximately one-fifth of an inch (one-half centimeter) long and approximately three-fourths of an inch (2 centimeters) above the crease of the right wrist.218 Dr. Shaw had initially believed that the missile entered on the palm side of the Governor's wrist and exited on the back side.219 After reviewing the factors considered by Dr. Gregory, however, Dr. Shaw withdrew his earlier opinion. He deferred to the judgment of Dr. Gregory, who had more closely examined that wound during the wrist operation.
[quote off]

The conflict is not between Dr. Shaw and the WC but between Dr. Shaw's initial opinion and Dr. Gregory's. While Dr. Shaw was
the head of the surgical team, it was Dr.Gregory who performed the surgery on the wrist. It is not surprising therefore that
Dr. Shaw would defer to Dr. Gregory's opinion since he had looked much more closely at the wrist wounds. The WC was totally
transparent about this and reported both Dr. Shaw's original opinion and the fact he changed his mind after seeing Gregory's
findings.

Post by Gil Jesus
IMO, Corbett's losing it. He's gotten more vicious with each post.

Giltardo's way of saying I have become more critical of his silly ideas with each post.

Post by Gil Jesus
It's funny how people on our side don't care about what the LNers believe, but they have a problem with what we believe.
So who's the "kook" here ?
The person who believes that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, or the asshole who says, "you have to believe what I believe" ?

Giltardo lies again. He has to make up quotes and attribute them to me because he can't refute what I actually have to say.
That tells us all we need to know about Giltardo.

Ben Holmes

2023-12-08 15:43:10 UTC

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 06:02:35 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

That's because the prosectors saw the trail of tissue damage the led from the entry wound on the back directly to the
incision in the throat and weren't as dumb as you.

Can you name this logical fallacy? How did you distinguish damage
done by a bullet ENTERING the throat from one that supposedy exited
the throat?

What experiments have you conducted? Chuckles would be so ashamed of
you.

Mark Ulrik

2023-12-08 12:59:12 UTC

Post by NoTrueFlags Here
https://postimg.cc/QBWy6xKs
Just another coincidence? Don't be silly. Connally was also shot from the front.

Don't you understand? The part where Connally turned around and waved, exposing the dorsal side of his wrist to the knoll shooter, was edited out of the Z-film. The intended target was actually Jackie, but the gunman underestimated the hand speed of the seasoned politician. The spent bullet came to rest on the back seat, later to be picked up by a guilt-ridden and somewhat intoxicated SS agent.

Gil Jesus

2023-12-08 13:11:11 UTC

Post by Mark Ulrik
Don't you understand? The part where Connally turned around and waved, exposing the dorsal side of his wrist to the knoll shooter, was edited out of the Z-film. The intended target was actually Jackie, but the gunman underestimated the hand speed of the seasoned politician. The spent bullet came to rest on the back seat, later to be picked up by a guilt-ridden and somewhat intoxicated SS agent.

Source ?

JE Corbett

2023-12-08 14:03:57 UTC

Source ?

The sarcasm seems to have gone right over Giltardo's head.

Gil Jesus

2023-12-08 14:31:01 UTC

Post by JE Corbett
The sarcasm seems to have gone right over Giltardo's head.

Not really.
I knew he was being sarcastic. He's another asshole like you, giving shit to people he doesn't agree with.
He claims to be from Denmark, but I question why any foreign national would be such a fervent supporter of the Warren Commission.
Especially at a time when ( according to you assholes ) Americans aren't even interested in the topic anymore.
Check him out. He's on the Education Forum 16 hours a day.
That's quite a bit for someone whose country the US isn't and whose president Kennedy was not.

JE Corbett

2023-12-08 15:04:32 UTC

Post by JE Corbett
The sarcasm seems to have gone right over Giltardo's head.

Not really.

Then why did you ask for a source?

Gil Jesus

2023-12-08 15:22:51 UTC

Post by JE Corbett
Then why did you ask for a source?

Because I like fucking with shitheads like him.

Ben Holmes

2023-12-08 15:49:03 UTC

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 07:04:32 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

Post by JE Corbett
The sarcasm seems to have gone right over Giltardo's head.

Not really.

Then why did you ask for a source?

Why are you defending a troll?

Ben Holmes

2023-12-08 15:48:07 UTC

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 06:03:57 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

Source ?

The sarcasm seems to have gone right over Giltardo's head.

Nah - I'm quite sure that Gil knows trolls. He's simply proving your
cowardice.

Mark Ulrik

2023-12-08 14:08:37 UTC

Source ?

Nope. Pure CT conjecture.

Ben Holmes

2023-12-08 15:46:55 UTC

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 05:11:11 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Source ?

Trolls will troll. You can't expect logical and honest debate with
trolls.

Mark Ulrik

2023-12-08 16:36:36 UTC

Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 05:11:11 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Source ?

Trolls will troll. You can't expect logical and honest debate with
trolls.

Well, Gil was the one positing that the wrist wound was caused by a shot from the front. I only helped him articulate a scenario where the dorsal side of the wrist would indeed be exposed to a gunman on the knoll. Instead of proposing a more likely scenario, you resort to your TRADEMARK AD HOMINEM TROLLING in the vain hope that no one will notice who's the ass-clown here.

Ben Holmes

2023-12-08 15:40:59 UTC

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 03:26:28 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

Post by NoTrueFlags Here
https://postimg.cc/QBWy6xKs
Just another coincidence? Don't be silly. Connally was also shot from the front.

Oh, Goody. The assclowns are playing doctor again. How about a cite where the WC states the bullet entered on the palm
side of the wrist.

Why are you asking for a WC cite? If you were honest, wouldn't you be
asking for Dr. Gregory's testimony?

Post by JE Corbett
It is not possible for the bullet that struck Connally's wrist to have come from in front.

This is, of course, what the medical evidence shows.

Post by JE Corbett
His wrist was struck
while he was holding his hat in his lap, well below the top of side of the car.

Your speculation isn't evidence.

Post by JE Corbett
The shot had to come from an elevated
position and there was no position in front of the limo that would have provided a line of fire into Connally's wrist.

Other than the Grassy Knoll.

Post by JE Corbett
Do you guys ever think things out before you bother posting them?

Right back at ya, moron!

Hank Sienzant

2023-12-08 19:59:41 UTC

Post by NoTrueFlags Here
https://postimg.cc/QBWy6xKs
Just another coincidence? Don't be silly. Connally was also shot from the front.

Why? Establish this assertion.

Ben Holmes

2023-12-11 15:03:35 UTC

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 11:59:41 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<***@aol.com> wrote:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

Hank Sienzant

2023-12-08 18:56:11 UTC

Post by NoTrueFlags Here
https://postimg.cc/QBWy6xKs
Just another coincidence? Don't be silly. Connally was also shot from the front.

CE326 actually looks like this:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0471b.htm
What you have linked to as Ce326 is a complete forgery. It is not a legitimate document.

Here’s the correct exhibit, CE679:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0181b.htm

Dr. Gregory, the Governor’s treating physician for his wrist wound, explained the diagram is wrong, and corrected it:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/gregory1.htm
— quote —
Mr. SPECTER - I now hand you a document marked Commission Exhibit No. 679, which Dr. Shaw used to identify the wounds on the Governor's back, and I ask you to note whether these documents accurately depict the place and the identity of the entry and exit wounds.
Dr. GREGORY - They do not in that, though the location of the wounds on the forearm is correct, and the dimensions, it is my opinion that entrance and exit terms have been reversed.
…
Mr. SPECTER - Are the X-rays helpful in any other way in ascertaining the point of entry and the point of exit?
Dr. GREGORY - There is a suggestion to be seen in Exhibit B, the lateral view, a suggestion of the pathway as seen by distortion of soft tissues. This has become a bit irregular on the dorsal side. There is evidence of air in the tissues on this side suggesting that the pathway was something like this.
Mr. SPECTER - And when you say indications of air on which side did you mean by "this side," Doctor?
Dr. GREGORY - Air distally on the volar side. There is some evidence of air in the tissue on the volar side too but they are at different levels and this suggests that they gained access to the tissue plans in this fashion.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you elaborate on just what do you mean by "this fashion," indicating the distinctions on the level of the air which suggest that conclusion to you?
Dr. GREGORY - Recall that I suggested that the wound of entrance, certainly the dorsal wound lay some distance, 5 cm. above the wrist joint, approximately here, that the second wound considered to be the wound of exit was only 2 cm. above this point, making the pathway an oblique one.
Mr. DULLES - Would you show that on your own wrist?
Dr. GREGORY - Yes.
Mr. DULLES - We have to explain this a little for the record but I think it would be very useful.
Dr. GREGORY - I think you will have an opportunity to see the real thing a little later if the Governor makes his appearance here.
But the wound of entry I considered to be, although on his right hand, of course, to be approximately at this point on the wrist, and the wound of exit here, which is about the right level for my coat sleeve held at a casual position.
Mr. SPECTER - Let the record show you made two red marks on your wrist, which are in the same position as that which you have described heretofore in technical language.
Dr. GREGORY - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Had you finished the complete explanation on the indicator from the air levels which you had mentioned before?
Dr. GREGORY - Yes. The air is a little bit more visible to the dorsal surface, closer to the skin here, not so close down at the lower portion, not so much tissue destruction had occurred at the point of the emergence.
— unquote —

Now, a few questions:

A. Who is responsible for the forged Commission Exhibit 326? Did you create it or find it somewhere?
B. If you did not create it, why did you accept it as genuine without verifying it? It took me five minutes to determine the document you linked to is a forgery.
C. Why did Ben and Gil agree with your claims so readily? Did not validate it either? Did you suppose they accepted your claims at face value simply because they agreed with your conclusion?

I also have a question for the LN side:
After so much evidence that has been proven false has come from the conspiracy side (like the “Dear Mr. Hunt” letter), why accept anything provided by a CT as genuine?

NoTrueFlags Here

2023-12-08 19:06:09 UTC

Post by NoTrueFlags Here
https://postimg.cc/QBWy6xKs
Just another coincidence? Don't be silly. Connally was also shot from the front.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0471b.htm
What you have linked to as Ce326 is a complete forgery. It is not a legitimate document.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0181b.htm
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/gregory1.htm
— quote —
Mr. SPECTER - I now hand you a document marked Commission Exhibit No. 679, which Dr. Shaw used to identify the wounds on the Governor's back, and I ask you to note whether these documents accurately depict the place and the identity of the entry and exit wounds.
Dr. GREGORY - They do not in that, though the location of the wounds on the forearm is correct, and the dimensions, it is my opinion that entrance and exit terms have been reversed.
…
Mr. SPECTER - Are the X-rays helpful in any other way in ascertaining the point of entry and the point of exit?
Dr. GREGORY - There is a suggestion to be seen in Exhibit B, the lateral view, a suggestion of the pathway as seen by distortion of soft tissues. This has become a bit irregular on the dorsal side. There is evidence of air in the tissues on this side suggesting that the pathway was something like this.
Mr. SPECTER - And when you say indications of air on which side did you mean by "this side," Doctor?
Dr. GREGORY - Air distally on the volar side. There is some evidence of air in the tissue on the volar side too but they are at different levels and this suggests that they gained access to the tissue plans in this fashion.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you elaborate on just what do you mean by "this fashion," indicating the distinctions on the level of the air which suggest that conclusion to you?
Dr. GREGORY - Recall that I suggested that the wound of entrance, certainly the dorsal wound lay some distance, 5 cm. above the wrist joint, approximately here, that the second wound considered to be the wound of exit was only 2 cm. above this point, making the pathway an oblique one.
Mr. DULLES - Would you show that on your own wrist?
Dr. GREGORY - Yes.
Mr. DULLES - We have to explain this a little for the record but I think it would be very useful.
Dr. GREGORY - I think you will have an opportunity to see the real thing a little later if the Governor makes his appearance here.
But the wound of entry I considered to be, although on his right hand, of course, to be approximately at this point on the wrist, and the wound of exit here, which is about the right level for my coat sleeve held at a casual position.
Mr. SPECTER - Let the record show you made two red marks on your wrist, which are in the same position as that which you have described heretofore in technical language.
Dr. GREGORY - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Had you finished the complete explanation on the indicator from the air levels which you had mentioned before?
Dr. GREGORY - Yes. The air is a little bit more visible to the dorsal surface, closer to the skin here, not so close down at the lower portion, not so much tissue destruction had occurred at the point of the emergence.
— unquote —
A. Who is responsible for the forged Commission Exhibit 326? Did you create it or find it somewhere?
B. If you did not create it, why did you accept it as genuine without verifying it? It took me five minutes to determine the document you linked to is a forgery.
C. Why did Ben and Gil agree with your claims so readily? Did not validate it either? Did you suppose they accepted your claims at face value simply because they agreed with your conclusion?
After so much evidence that has been proven false has come from the conspiracy side (like the “Dear Mr. Hunt” letter), why accept anything provided by a CT as genuine?

You made an assertion. Prove that my document is a forgery.

Hank Sienzant

2023-12-08 19:15:49 UTC

Post by NoTrueFlags Here
https://postimg.cc/QBWy6xKs
Just another coincidence? Don't be silly. Connally was also shot from the front.

You made an assertion. Prove that my document is a forgery.

My apologies. I see your link, although not labelled as such, is to a Commission Document, not a Commission Exhibit. I presumed it was to the CE 326.

But your claim that it was changed, while true, is meaningless out of context. And you removed the context. It was changed because his treating physician testified the original document was incorrect.

Your post is meaningless without that context.

NoTrueFlags Here

2023-12-08 19:16:57 UTC

Post by NoTrueFlags Here
https://postimg.cc/QBWy6xKs
Just another coincidence? Don't be silly. Connally was also shot from the front.

You made an assertion. Prove that my document is a forgery.

My apologies. I see your link, although not labelled as such, is to a Commission Document, not a Commission Exhibit. I presumed it was to the CE 326.
But your claim that it was changed, while true, is meaningless out of context. And you removed the context. It was changed because his treating physician testified the original document was incorrect.
Your post is meaningless without that context.

I didn't remove anything. You continue to accuse me of shit without being able to prove it.

Ben Holmes

2023-12-11 15:04:10 UTC

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 11:15:49 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<***@aol.com> wrote:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

Gil Jesus

2023-12-08 19:14:28 UTC

Post by NoTrueFlags Here
https://postimg.cc/QBWy6xKs
Just another coincidence? Don't be silly. Connally was also shot from the front.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0471b.htm

That's because it's NOT CE 326. It's CD 326.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10727#relPageId=1

Post by Hank Sienzant
What you have linked to as Ce326 is a complete forgery. It is not a legitimate document.

No, You're in error, as usual. There's no forgery here.

Post by Hank Sienzant
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0181b.htm

That's the WC version also seen on page 4 of CD 326 :
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10727#relPageId=4
That's the version that made it to the 26 volumes.

Post by Hank Sienzant
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/gregory1.htm
— quote —
Mr. SPECTER - I now hand you a document marked Commission Exhibit No. 679, which Dr. Shaw used to identify the wounds on the Governor's back, and I ask you to note whether these documents accurately depict the place and the identity of the entry and exit wounds.
Dr. GREGORY - They do not in that, though the location of the wounds on the forearm is correct, and the dimensions, it is my opinion that entrance and exit terms have been reversed.
…
Mr. SPECTER - Are the X-rays helpful in any other way in ascertaining the point of entry and the point of exit?
Dr. GREGORY - There is a suggestion to be seen in Exhibit B, the lateral view, a suggestion of the pathway as seen by distortion of soft tissues. This has become a bit irregular on the dorsal side. There is evidence of air in the tissues on this side suggesting that the pathway was something like this.
Mr. SPECTER - And when you say indications of air on which side did you mean by "this side," Doctor?
Dr. GREGORY - Air distally on the volar side. There is some evidence of air in the tissue on the volar side too but they are at different levels and this suggests that they gained access to the tissue plans in this fashion.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you elaborate on just what do you mean by "this fashion," indicating the distinctions on the level of the air which suggest that conclusion to you?
Dr. GREGORY - Recall that I suggested that the wound of entrance, certainly the dorsal wound lay some distance, 5 cm. above the wrist joint, approximately here, that the second wound considered to be the wound of exit was only 2 cm. above this point, making the pathway an oblique one.
Mr. DULLES - Would you show that on your own wrist?
Dr. GREGORY - Yes.
Mr. DULLES - We have to explain this a little for the record but I think it would be very useful.
Dr. GREGORY - I think you will have an opportunity to see the real thing a little later if the Governor makes his appearance here.
But the wound of entry I considered to be, although on his right hand, of course, to be approximately at this point on the wrist, and the wound of exit here, which is about the right level for my coat sleeve held at a casual position.
Mr. SPECTER - Let the record show you made two red marks on your wrist, which are in the same position as that which you have described heretofore in technical language.
Dr. GREGORY - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Had you finished the complete explanation on the indicator from the air levels which you had mentioned before?
Dr. GREGORY - Yes. The air is a little bit more visible to the dorsal surface, closer to the skin here, not so close down at the lower portion, not so much tissue destruction had occurred at the point of the emergence.
— unquote —

That's right he corrected it and that corrected version is the hand-written version seen on page 6 of CD 326:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10727#relPageId=6

Post by Hank Sienzant
A. Who is responsible for the forged Commission Exhibit 326? Did you create it or find it somewhere?

Already answered above.

Post by Hank Sienzant
B. If you did not create it, why did you accept it as genuine without verifying it? It took me five minutes to determine the document you linked to is a forgery.

Already answered above.

Post by Hank Sienzant
C. Why did Ben and Gil agree with your claims so readily? Did not validate it either? Did you suppose they accepted your claims at face value simply because they agreed with your conclusion?

Because unlike you, we know what the fuck we are talking about.

Ben Holmes

2023-12-11 15:21:38 UTC

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 11:14:28 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by NoTrueFlags Here
https://postimg.cc/QBWy6xKs
Just another coincidence? Don't be silly. Connally was also shot from the front.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0471b.htm

That's because it's NOT CE 326. It's CD 326.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10727#relPageId=1

Post by Hank Sienzant
What you have linked to as Ce326 is a complete forgery. It is not a legitimate document.

No, You're in error, as usual. There's no forgery here.

Gil spanks Huckster over his ignorance again...

Post by Hank Sienzant
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0181b.htm

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10727#relPageId=4
That's the version that made it to the 26 volumes.

Post by Hank Sienzant
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/gregory1.htm
quote
Mr. SPECTER - I now hand you a document marked Commission Exhibit No. 679, which Dr. Shaw used to identify the wounds on the Governor's back, and I ask you to note whether these documents accurately depict the place and the identity of the entry and exit wounds.
Dr. GREGORY - They do not in that, though the location of the wounds on the forearm is correct, and the dimensions, it is my opinion that entrance and exit terms have been reversed.

Mr. SPECTER - Are the X-rays helpful in any other way in ascertaining the point of entry and the point of exit?
Dr. GREGORY - There is a suggestion to be seen in Exhibit B, the lateral view, a suggestion of the pathway as seen by distortion of soft tissues. This has become a bit irregular on the dorsal side. There is evidence of air in the tissues on this side suggesting that the pathway was something like this.
Mr. SPECTER - And when you say indications of air on which side did you mean by "this side," Doctor?
Dr. GREGORY - Air distally on the volar side. There is some evidence of air in the tissue on the volar side too but they are at different levels and this suggests that they gained access to the tissue plans in this fashion.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you elaborate on just what do you mean by "this fashion," indicating the distinctions on the level of the air which suggest that conclusion to you?
Dr. GREGORY - Recall that I suggested that the wound of entrance, certainly the dorsal wound lay some distance, 5 cm. above the wrist joint, approximately here, that the second wound considered to be the wound of exit was only 2 cm. above this point, making the pathway an oblique one.
Mr. DULLES - Would you show that on your own wrist?
Dr. GREGORY - Yes.
Mr. DULLES - We have to explain this a little for the record but I think it would be very useful.
Dr. GREGORY - I think you will have an opportunity to see the real thing a little later if the Governor makes his appearance here.
But the wound of entry I considered to be, although on his right hand, of course, to be approximately at this point on the wrist, and the wound of exit here, which is about the right level for my coat sleeve held at a casual position.
Mr. SPECTER - Let the record show you made two red marks on your wrist, which are in the same position as that which you have described heretofore in technical language.
Dr. GREGORY - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Had you finished the complete explanation on the indicator from the air levels which you had mentioned before?
Dr. GREGORY - Yes. The air is a little bit more visible to the dorsal surface, closer to the skin here, not so close down at the lower portion, not so much tissue destruction had occurred at the point of the emergence.
unquote

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10727#relPageId=6

Gil spanks Huckster again...

Post by Hank Sienzant
A. Who is responsible for the forged Commission Exhibit 326? Did you create it or find it somewhere?

Already answered above.

Watch, as Huckster refuses to retract what you've proven is a lie.

Post by Hank Sienzant
B. If you did not create it, why did you accept it as genuine without verifying it? It took me five minutes to determine the document you linked to is a forgery.

Already answered above.

Because unlike you, we know what the fuck we are talking about.

Indeed. I've long known the medical evidence concerning Connally's
wrist... and have posted on it for years.

Now watch Huckster slink back to his safe place, and cry.

What you WON'T see is Huckster admitting he's wrong.

Which makes it a lie.

Ben Holmes

2023-12-11 15:03:59 UTC

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 10:56:11 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<***@aol.com> wrote:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

Hank Sienzant

2023-12-08 19:33:11 UTC

Post by NoTrueFlags Here
https://postimg.cc/QBWy6xKs
Just another coincidence? Don't be silly. Connally was also shot from the front.

You removed the context (that Dr. Gregory said the original was wrong and that’s why it was changed) and claimed Connally was shot from the front. Clearly you were implying it was changed to conceal evidence of a shot from the front, hence, a conspiracy.

But it was changed because his treating doctor for the wrist wound testified the original was incorrect, and the forearm wound mislabellied. The revised document shows the correct labelling. Your claims, absent that context, leave the wrong impression - that Ben and Gil were quick to agree with.

As a former CT myself, I understand you as a CT don't have true evidence of a conspiracy, so you have to manufacture it by taking testimony and documents out of their true context. You did so here, alleging a shot from the front.

NoTrueFlags Here

2023-12-08 19:42:49 UTC

Post by NoTrueFlags Here
https://postimg.cc/QBWy6xKs
Just another coincidence? Don't be silly. Connally was also shot from the front.

You removed the context (that Dr. Gregory said the original was wrong and that’s why it was changed) and claimed Connally was shot from the front. Clearly you were implying it was changed to conceal evidence of a shot from the front, hence, a conspiracy.
But it was changed because his treating doctor for the wrist wound testified the original was incorrect, and the forearm wound mislabellied. The revised document shows the correct labelling. Your claims, absent that context, leave the wrong impression - that Ben and Gil were quick to agree with.
As a former CT myself, I understand you as a CT don't have true evidence of a conspiracy, so you have to manufacture it by taking testimony and documents out of their true context. You did so here, alleging a shot from the front.

I did not remove any context. I provided two documents. And you incorrectly state the context. The diagrams were changed before Gregory testified. Maybe you missed some of that context, but I did not "remove" it. The fact is that the "enter" wound was changed to an "exit" wound. Yes, the good doctor said it was wrong. Of course! I never said he didn't. But, if you want context, see frame 322 of the Zapruder film, where Connally's wrist has just been shot, from the front, and exit material can be seen coming out of the back of the wrist. But, I forget. Of course, you can't see ANYTHING! Fucking idiot.

Donald Willis

2023-12-09 22:14:10 UTC

Post by NoTrueFlags Here
https://postimg.cc/QBWy6xKs
Just another coincidence? Don't be silly. Connally was also shot from the front.

You removed the context (that Dr. Gregory said the original was wrong and that’s why it was changed) and claimed Connally was shot from the front. Clearly you were implying it was changed to conceal evidence of a shot from the front, hence, a conspiracy.
But it was changed because his treating doctor for the wrist wound testified the original was incorrect, and the forearm wound mislabellied. The revised document shows the correct labelling. Your claims, absent that context, leave the wrong impression - that Ben and Gil were quick to agree with.
As a former CT myself, I understand you as a CT don't have true evidence of a conspiracy, so you have to manufacture

Is Hank here admitting that, when he was a CT, he "manufactured" evidence? Can we believe him now as an LN??

\
it by taking testimony and documents out of their true context. You did so here, alleging a shot from the front.

Ben Holmes

2023-12-11 15:21:38 UTC

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 11:33:11 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<***@aol.com> wrote:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

NoTrueFlags Here

2023-12-09 08:29:57 UTC

Post by NoTrueFlags Here
https://postimg.cc/QBWy6xKs
Just another coincidence? Don't be silly. Connally was also shot from the front.

So, when the Secret Service realized that there was a problem with the bullet entering the under side of the wrist, they had a chat with the doctors and changed the entry to the top side of the wrist. And Dr, Gregory went along with that.

recip...@gmail.com

2023-12-09 16:12:57 UTC

Post by NoTrueFlags Here
https://postimg.cc/QBWy6xKs
Just another coincidence? Don't be silly. Connally was also shot from the front.

In his 11/22/63 operative report, Gregory put the entry on the dorsal side of the wrist. The only mind that got changed was Shaw's

NoTrueFlags Here

2023-12-09 19:54:01 UTC

Post by NoTrueFlags Here
https://postimg.cc/QBWy6xKs
Just another coincidence? Don't be silly. Connally was also shot from the front.

In his 11/22/63 operative report, Gregory put the entry on the dorsal side of the wrist. The only mind that got changed was Shaw's

Yes. I think that is correct. The Dr. Shaw testimony clarifies that for me. It seems the Secret Service is not guilty on this point. But, Connally's wrist still was shot from the front, as Zapruder frame 322 demonstrates.

JE Corbett

2023-12-09 22:21:32 UTC

Post by NoTrueFlags Here
https://postimg.cc/QBWy6xKs
Just another coincidence? Don't be silly. Connally was also shot from the front.

In his 11/22/63 operative report, Gregory put the entry on the dorsal side of the wrist. The only mind that got changed was Shaw's

Impossible

Ben Holmes

2023-12-11 15:09:32 UTC