Die Platte hängt, kann das sein?bredulino schrieb:und was hat das mit den konkreten Sicherheitsmaßnahmen zu tun?
Es ging also NICHT darum, wer bei den konkreten Sicherheitsmaßnahmen sagen hat
Du darfst gerne ein paar Seiten zurückblättern und dir die Zusammenhänge nochmal durchlesen, ich werde es nicht nochmal alles für dich wiederholen.
Also: Dass der Präsident dem US SS diktiert WIE er dafür sorgt dass es sicher ist steht da nicht.
gehe wir doch mal kriminologisch vor. In de Totenschein des Präsidenten steht, dass der Eintritt im Rücken auf Höhe des dritten Brustwirbels erfolgte:
Wie passt das zu Mr. Hills Aussage:Pandorum schrieb:Aber Weisungsbefugnis was theoretisch eine Befehlsgewalt wäre hat er keine! Er kann nicht einem Agenten befehlen seinen Posten zu verlassen denn das ist ein Vergehen für den Schützer! Das kann zu einer Straftat werden wenn dadurch seine Garantenstellung nicht durchführbar und verhindert wird! Auch wenn Trump das so will und auf dem Boden strampelt wird der Agent das HQ kontaktieren und mit dem verantwortlichen den Wunsch des Präsidenten erklären und erst dann wenn diese das Ok gibt wird er seinen Posten verlassen!
Vor allem der Teil mit der Entscheidung des Agenten sich mehr oder weniger dorthin zu begeben wo er es für richtig hält und das es dazu gar keine Dienstvorschriften gab beim USSS.
Mr. HILL. It is left to the agent's discretion more or less to move to that particular position when he feels that there is a danger to the President; to place himself as close to the President or the First Lady as my ease was, as possible, which I did.
Mr. SPECTER. Are those practices specified in any written documents of the Secret Service?
Mr. HILL. No; they are not.
Du hast dir das ja schon sonst beantwortet und musst selbst differenzieren!McMurdo schrieb:Wie passt das zu Mr. Hills Aussage
Natürlich kann sich der Schützer nach seinem ermessen in eine Position bewegen wenn er das Gefühl hat eine Gefährdung aufgespürt zu haben! Es ist genau sein Auftrag für die Sicherheit des Präsidenten zu sorgen!
Der Totenschein wurde im Parkland Hospital nach einer sehr kurzen Leichenschau ausgestellt. Die Autopsie in Washington D.C. kam zu folgenden Ergebnissen:
The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck. This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura and of the apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck. Warren Commission Report, p. 543.http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm (Archiv-Version vom 01.02.2018)
Das Dokument wurde am 23.11. erstellt, d.h. nach der Autopsie
Original anzeigen (0,3 MB)
da wird der Leichnam von mehreren Händen niedergedrückt, der Kopf liegt im Nacken
"Grob"? Es geht nicht "grob"- der Krawattenknoten vorne soll von der Kugel getroffen worden sein. Dein Austritt sitzt zu tief. Hätte die Kugel in deinem Bild nicht durch Knochen gehen müssen?
Warum verlangst du von mir Dienstvorschriften wenn es nicht unbedingt welche gab?
By the Way habe ich weiter vorne diese schon gepostet.
Na und? Es ist das Dokument aus dem Parkland in Dallas. Der Autor bezieht sich auf das, was er gesehen hat, so lange JFK im Parkland in Behandlung war.
Diese sog. Autopsieskizze ist lediglich das Deckblatt (facesheet) des Autopsieberichts. Dort kann ich ja nicht mal die Kopfwunde erkennen.
Schon mal Krawatte getragen? Und Hemden in verschiedenen Größen? Und verschiedene Krawattenknoten ausprobiert? Wo der Knoten ist, hängt davon ab, wie eng oder locker das Hemd ist, wie eng oder locker der Knoten gebunden ist und letztlich auch, wie dick oder dünn die Krawatte ist.
du musst das im historischen Kontext betrachten
By June of '66, people were talking not only about the books of Epstein and Lane, but articles critical of the Commission appearing in various magazines and newspapers. One of these, an article by Fred Cook in The Nation, revealed that the Warren Commission had not only failed to study the photographs and x-rays of President Kennedy's body in order to verify the accuracy of the Rydberg drawings depicting Kennedy's wounds, but had, even worse, prevented the doctors who'd created these drawings from studying these materials, and using them for reference.
This was powerful stuff. The impact of this information was such that Jacob Cohen, in a counter-point to Cook's article in The Nation, nevertheless agreed that "the x-rays and photos must now be made available for competent study and interpretation."
The net effect of these articles, even defenses of the Commission like Cohen's, then, was to raise doubts about the Commission's conclusions.
This, in turn, raised doubts about the legitimacy of Lyndon Johnson's presidency. As a consequence, it became politically desirable for the Johnson Administration to have the autopsy doctors do what they should have done in 1964--verify the accuracy of the drawings they'd presented the Warren Commission.
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter10%3Aexaminingtheexaminations
Welche Messungen waren "präzise"?
"The X-rays and photographs show the
wound to be lower on the back and the track
slightly upward." [p 14]...And in HSCA Volume l, page I96, he
said. "ln the jacket and the underlying skin
there is a perforation of the fabric that corresponds directly with the location of
the perforation of the skin of the right upper back...
Yet, in 1988, on Nova, Baden said the track is
upward only if Kennedy had been upright...
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/michael-baden-s-deceptions
The panel noted that "when seen in the autopsy position, the outshoot wound [the wound of exit in the President's throat] was described as being at about the same height (or slightly higher) relative to the inshoot wound [the wound of entrance in the President's back]."(3) Dr. Wecht questioned how this could be possible.
When panel member Charles S. Petty, the longtime medical examiner of Dallas County, Texas, and ranked by his peers as the "Quintessential Forensic Pathologist," testified before the House committee, he described the bullet as "traveling in a somewhat upward direction, anatomically speaking."
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100sbth.html (Archiv-Version vom 05.01.2019)
Welche konreten Messwerte meinst du?
The bullet wound “was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column,” a location consistent with the bullet holes in the president’s shirt and jacket but too low to be consistent with the single–bullet theory.http://22november1963.org.uk/sibert-and-oneill-report (Archiv-Version vom 13.03.2018)
“This opening was probed by Dr. HUMES with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees.” A bullet entering at a downward angle could not have come out through the throat, as the single–bullet theory demanded.
mit der aufrechten Oberkörperhaltung liegst du richtig- nur kriegst mit dem läppischen Gefälle von drei Grad den Rücken immer noch nicht nicht über die Kehle
Schon mal Krawatte getragen? Und Hemden in verschiedenen Größen? Und verschiedene Krawattenknoten ausprobiert? Wo der Knoten ist, hängt davon ab, wie eng oder locker das Hemd ist, wie eng oder locker der Knoten gebunden ist und letztlich auch, wie dick oder dünn die Krawatte ist.
Damals Anfang der 1960er Jahre trug man dünne Krawatten mit kleinen Knoten und wesentlich weniger steife Hemden als Heute. Ergo rutschte der Knoten am Hals nach unten, wenn das Hemd nicht total eng war. Und wenn man den ganzen Tag damit unterwegs ist, sollten noch zwei Finger in den Kragen passen.
Original anzeigen (0,2 MB)Die Zeichnung stammt von der Ausgabe des 25. November 1966 der Baltimore Sun...
The Justice Department’s agitation about unwanted public skepticism is apparent in a flurry of now-declassified memos that flew between former Commission staffers David Slawson and Wesley Liebeler, and then-Attorney General Ramsey Clark. In a once-secret memo dated 11/25/66, Clark laid out a plan: “We should carefully examine,” he ordered, “all the criticisms, hypotheses and suggestions contained in the existing body of literature concerning the President’s assassination and the work of the Warren Commission. The purpose is to inventory the contentions so we can evaluate their validity. I would like the task described above to be undertaken by a small group of lawyers within the (Justice) Department on an unpublicized basis ... .”https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_2.htm
..
As mentioned, the first examination of the autopsy evidence occurred on November 1, 1966. Nine days later, the signatories – pathologists James Humes, MD and J. Thornton Boswell, MD, radiologist John Ebersole, MD, and autopsy photographer John Stringer – signed off on their review in an affidavit entitled the “Report of Inspection by Naval Medical Staff on November 1, 1966 at National Archives of X-Rays and Photographs of Autopsy of President John F. Kennedy.”[141] The affidavit, really more of an inventory of the autopsy materials, is the first known catalog of Kennedy’s extant autopsy photographs and X-rays.
The Justice Department’s role in the process, however, was nowhere mentioned in the signed “Report of Inspection.” It came to light two months later, on January 26, 1967, when the pathologists signed a second Justice Department affidavit after they were shown the same autopsy materials for the second time. In the second affidavit, they admitted that they “first saw the photographs on November 1, 1966, when requested by the Department of Justice to examine, identify, and inventory them at the National Archives.”[142]
Da hatte das Justizministerium unter LBJ seine Finger mit im Spiel:
Curiously, the signed inventory is not the only inventory bearing the names Humes, Boswell, Ebersole and Stringer names. A second, unsigned inventory turned up that listed three names that were apparently deleted from the signed version: James B. Rhodes, Deputy Archivist of the United States (sic), Marion Johnson of the National Archives, and, oddly, Carl Belcher, U. S. Department of Justice (sic).[143] (Belcher’s pivotal role in this process only became evident later.) But the longer list of names in the unsigned version is not the most important difference between the two inventories.
From both public and once-secret files, we have learned that each of JFK’s threepathologists and both autopsy photographers later repeatedly testified under oath that photographs they took on the night of the autopsy were missing from the official inventory they had signed off as complete in 1966.[149]
For example, in a once-secret memo, HSCA counsel, D. Andy Purdy, JD, reported that during an interview, chief autopsy photographer, "(John) STRINGER (sic) said it was his recollection that all the photographs he had taken were not present in 1966 (when Stringer saw the photographs for the first time.) [150] Among the missing pictures are those taken of the interior of JFK’s chest. None survive in the current inventory. Yet every autopsy participant who was asked recalled that photographs were taken of the interior of JFK’s body, as indeed they should have been to document the passage of the non-fatal bullet through JFK’s chest:
· John Stringer told the HSCA he recalled taking “at least two exposures of the body cavity.” A. Purdy.[151]
· James Humes, MD was reported in an HSCA memo to have, "... specifically recall(ed photographs) ... were taken of the President's chest ... (these photographs ) do not exist."[152] As already discussed, Humes had told the Warren Commission in 1964 that he had taken pictures of the interior of Kennedy’s chest.[153]
· J. Thornton Boswell, MD, the second in command, backed up Stringer and Humes. The HSCA recorded that, "... he (Boswell) thought they photographed '... the exposed thoracic cavity and lung ...' but (he) doesn't remember ever seeing those photographs."[154]
· Robert Karnei, MD, a Navy pathologist who assisted but was not a member of the official autopsy team, told the HSCA, "He (Karnei) recalls them putting the probe in and taking pictures (the body was on the side at the time) (sic)."[155]
im fraglichen ZeitRAUM, d.h. vom frühst- bis zum letztmöglichen ZeitPUNT, saß JFK aufrecht
Welche? Die linke? Dein einwand ändert nichts an dem eintritt im Brustwirbelbereich
Der Autor war Dr. George Burkley- er war auch bei der Autopsie dabei
Inwiefern? Der Eintritt der roten Linie ist auf Höhe des ersten Brustwirbels (erinnere dich die ursprünglichen Aussagen vom Rücken, d.h. Brustwibelbereich sprechen)
Warum? Inwiefern? Die Kugel soll den Krawattenknoten durchschlagen haben
Original anzeigen (0,2 MB)
WELCHE der Experten?
WAS siehst du?
Das liegt daran weil du nicht auf meine Argumente und Quellen eingehst
"The X-rays and photographs show the
wound to be lower on the back and the track
slightly upward." [p 14]...And in HSCA Volume l, page I96, he
said. "ln the jacket and the underlying skin
there is a perforation of the fabric that corresponds directly with the location of
the perforation of the skin of the right upper back...
Yet, in 1988, on Nova, Baden said the track is
upward only if Kennedy had been upright...
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/michael-baden-s-deceptions
The panel noted that "when seen in the autopsy position, the outshoot wound [the wound of exit in the President's throat] was described as being at about the same height (or slightly higher) relative to the inshoot wound [the wound of entrance in the President's back]."(3) Dr. Wecht questioned how this could be possible.
When panel member Charles S. Petty, the longtime medical examiner of Dallas County, Texas, and ranked by his peers as the "Quintessential Forensic Pathologist," testified before the House committee, he described the bullet as "traveling in a somewhat upward direction, anatomically speaking."
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100sbth.html (Archiv-Version vom 05.01.2019)
