• Trailer: What the Doctors Saw -- Coming November 14th

    From Gil Jesus@21:1/5 to All on Mon Oct 30 15:29:00 2023
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MM-rqHroIDs

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to gjjmail1202@gmail.com on Tue Oct 31 06:32:49 2023
    On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 15:29:00 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
    <gjjmail1202@gmail.com> wrote:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MM-rqHroIDs

    I thought this was all over... ancient history, no-one's interested...
    Why are new documentaries coming out???

    I guess Chuckles got it wrong. :)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Corbett@21:1/5 to Gil Jesus on Tue Oct 31 10:13:45 2023
    On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 6:29:02 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MM-rqHroIDs

    Looks like somebody is polishing up the old turds in preparation for the 60th anniversary of
    the assassination. Given a choice of sources, conspiracy hobbyists ALWAYS choose the least
    reliable and ignore the best. The ER doctors saw JFK for roughly 10 minutes during which time
    that were working frantically to save his life. They were not trying to distinguish entrance
    wounds from exit wounds. That is not what they were trained to do. Any impressions they
    formed afterward were based on memories of what they had seen during those 10 frantic
    minutes.

    By contrast, the autopsy team spent hours dissecting JFK's body for the specific purpose of
    determining the nature of the wounds. While the Bethesda doctors had no experience in
    forensic pathology, they were assisted by Dr. Finck from Walter Reed who did have experience
    in wound ballistics. The determined, correctly, that JFK had been struck by two bullets from
    behind. They knew this because entrance wounds have different characteristics than exit
    wounds. While it was far from a perfect autopsy, their core findings of two bullet strikes from
    behind has been confirmed by every qualified forensic medical examiner who has reviewed the
    photos and the x-rays. Not one has claimed there was any medical evidence of a bullet strike
    from the front or the side. Not one has indicated there was any medical evidence of a second
    gunman.

    Listening to the trailer, it's clear they are focusing on the impressions of the ER team that
    there was a large blowout in the rear of the skull. What they were actually looking at was the
    rear portion of a much larger blowout that extended from the occipital to the temporal
    regions with most of the defect being in the parietal bone.

    The trailer did not indicate who those doctors were that were discussing the wounds. If that
    panel discussion took place recently, none of the doctors on that panel looked old enough to
    have been in the ER the day of the assassination. Even a young resident in his mid to late
    twenties on the day of the assassination would be well into his eighties by now. None of that
    panel looked nearly that old which means they are forming opinions based on comments made
    by the ER team, not on any firsthand observations.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to geowright1963@gmail.com on Tue Oct 31 12:29:36 2023
    On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 10:13:45 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 6:29:02?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MM-rqHroIDs

    Looks like somebody is polishing up the old turds...

    We'll have to take your word for it... Corbutt - the turd expert.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gil Jesus@21:1/5 to John Corbett on Wed Nov 1 08:54:23 2023
    On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 1:13:47 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    The trailer did not indicate who those doctors were that were discussing the wounds. If that
    panel discussion took place recently, none of the doctors on that panel looked old enough to
    have been in the ER the day of the assassination. Even a young resident in his mid to late
    twenties on the day of the assassination would be well into his eighties by now. None of that
    panel looked nearly that old which means they are forming opinions based on comments made
    by the ER team, not on any firsthand observations.

    I'm sure that they just went out and picked up some winos for a panel chat. Idiot.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to gjjmail1202@gmail.com on Wed Nov 1 10:51:04 2023
    On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 08:54:23 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
    <gjjmail1202@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 1:13:47?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    The trailer did not indicate who those doctors were that were discussing the wounds. If that
    panel discussion took place recently, none of the doctors on that panel looked old enough to
    have been in the ER the day of the assassination. Even a young resident in his mid to late
    twenties on the day of the assassination would be well into his eighties by now. None of that
    panel looked nearly that old which means they are forming opinions based on comments made
    by the ER team, not on any firsthand observations.

    I'm sure that they just went out and picked up some winos for a panel chat. >Idiot.

    The moron didn't read the description of the video: "Previously
    unreleased footage unveils an extraordinary reunion involving seven
    doctors who were present in the Parkland Hospital Emergency Room where President John F. Kennedy was rushed after being shot on November 22,
    1963."

    Seems pretty clear to me.

    ROTFLMAO!!!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Corbett@21:1/5 to Gil Jesus on Wed Nov 1 14:58:39 2023
    On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 11:54:25 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 1:13:47 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    The trailer did not indicate who those doctors were that were discussing the wounds. If that
    panel discussion took place recently, none of the doctors on that panel looked old enough to
    have been in the ER the day of the assassination. Even a young resident in his mid to late
    twenties on the day of the assassination would be well into his eighties by now. None of that
    panel looked nearly that old which means they are forming opinions based on comments made
    by the ER team, not on any firsthand observations.
    I'm sure that they just went out and picked up some winos for a panel chat. Idiot.

    The only name I recognized was Robert McClelland so the others were probably on the
    periphery. In any case, the opinions of people who only tended to JFK for a matter of minutes
    before he flatlined hardly trump those of the autopsy team that spent hours examining the
    body for the specific purpose of determining the nature of the wounds. Their conclusion that
    the shots that struck JFK from behind have been confirmed by every qualified medical examiner
    who has looked at the photos and x-rays. You can't cite on qualified forensic examiner who
    saw any medical evidence of a shot from the front or the side. They have all said the medical
    evidence indicates JFK was hit by two shots from behind.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chuck Schuyler@21:1/5 to Ben Holmes on Wed Nov 1 20:32:16 2023
    On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 8:33:05 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
    On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 15:29:00 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
    <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MM-rqHroIDs

    I thought this was all over... ancient history, no-one's interested...
    Why are new documentaries coming out???

    I guess Chuckles got it wrong. :)

    I never said there was no interest or that this was all over. I have said that interest is dwindling, which is true.

    I also predicted a few months ago that if a new poll is commissioned (like the polling for the 50th anniversary that has been much discussed here), that we MAY see an uptick in conspiracy belief about JFK's murder. from the 50th anniversary poll number
    results. I base this on some prominent right-wingers like Tucker Carlson and others (Jesse Waters on FOX News) tying together conspiracy theories about Trump and the last election and the JFK assassination. RFK Jr. has been in the news a lot and of
    course he believes his dad and JFK were both killed by a conspiracy, so there is a chance, in my opinion, that conspiracy belief numbers will spike a little bit.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chuck Schuyler@21:1/5 to Gil Jesus on Wed Nov 1 20:34:50 2023
    On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 10:54:25 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 1:13:47 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    The trailer did not indicate who those doctors were that were discussing the wounds. If that
    panel discussion took place recently, none of the doctors on that panel looked old enough to
    have been in the ER the day of the assassination. Even a young resident in his mid to late
    twenties on the day of the assassination would be well into his eighties by now. None of that
    panel looked nearly that old which means they are forming opinions based on comments made
    by the ER team, not on any firsthand observations.
    I'm sure that they just went out and picked up some winos for a panel chat. Idiot.


    Didn't some of the Parkland doctors get a chance on the PBS program NOVA in 1988 to review the autopsy photos and confirm the wounds essentially were the same as what they saw when they were trying to save JFK's life at the hospital?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Von Pein@21:1/5 to Chuck Schuyler on Thu Nov 2 01:40:50 2023
    On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 11:34:52 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
    Didn't some of the Parkland doctors get a chance on the PBS program NOVA in 1988 to review the autopsy photos and confirm the wounds essentially were the same as what they saw when they were trying to save JFK's life at the hospital?

    http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/parkland-doctors-on-pbs-tv-in-1988.html

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Von Pein@21:1/5 to Chuck Schuyler on Thu Nov 2 01:39:57 2023
    On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 11:34:52 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 10:54:25 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 1:13:47 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    The trailer did not indicate who those doctors were that were discussing the wounds. If that
    panel discussion took place recently, none of the doctors on that panel looked old enough to
    have been in the ER the day of the assassination. Even a young resident in his mid to late
    twenties on the day of the assassination would be well into his eighties by now. None of that
    panel looked nearly that old which means they are forming opinions based on comments made
    by the ER team, not on any firsthand observations.
    I'm sure that they just went out and picked up some winos for a panel chat.
    Idiot.
    Didn't some of the Parkland doctors get a chance on the PBS program NOVA in 1988 to review the autopsy photos and confirm the wounds essentially were the same as what they saw when they were trying to save JFK's life at the hospital?

    http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/parkland-doctors-on-pbs-tv-in-1988.html

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From NoTrueFlags Here@21:1/5 to Chuck Schuyler on Thu Nov 2 02:59:35 2023
    On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 11:34:52 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 10:54:25 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 1:13:47 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    The trailer did not indicate who those doctors were that were discussing the wounds. If that
    panel discussion took place recently, none of the doctors on that panel looked old enough to
    have been in the ER the day of the assassination. Even a young resident in his mid to late
    twenties on the day of the assassination would be well into his eighties by now. None of that
    panel looked nearly that old which means they are forming opinions based on comments made
    by the ER team, not on any firsthand observations.
    I'm sure that they just went out and picked up some winos for a panel chat.
    Idiot.
    Didn't some of the Parkland doctors get a chance on the PBS program NOVA in 1988 to review the autopsy photos and confirm the wounds essentially were the same as what they saw when they were trying to save JFK's life at the hospital?
    25 years later is better than what they originally said?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gil Jesus@21:1/5 to Chuck Schuyler on Thu Nov 2 04:21:35 2023
    On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 11:34:52 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
    Didn't some of the Parkland doctors get a chance on the PBS program NOVA in 1988 to review the autopsy photos and confirm the wounds essentially were the same as what they saw when they were trying to save JFK's life at the hospital?

    Are these the same doctors ?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Corbett@21:1/5 to Gil Jesus on Thu Nov 2 05:44:15 2023
    On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 7:21:37 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 11:34:52 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
    Didn't some of the Parkland doctors get a chance on the PBS program NOVA in 1988 to review the autopsy photos and confirm the wounds essentially were the same as what they saw when they were trying to save JFK's life at the hospital?
    Are these the same doctors ?

    The trailer stated "They have not deviated from what the observed 60 years ago" so I thought it
    would be interesting to see what they had to say 60 years ago. Here are a couple accounts as
    testified to under oath before the Warren Commission:

    Dr. Robert McClelland, instructor of surgery:
    Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe as to President Kennedy's condition at that time?
    Dr. McCLELLAND - Well, on initially coming into the room and inspecting him from a distance of only 2 or 3 feet as I put on a pair of surgical gloves, it was obvious that he had sustained a probably mortal head injury, and that his face was extremely
    swollen and suffused with blood appeared cyanotic
    Mr. SPECTER - "Cyanotic"---may I interrupt-just what do you mean by that in lay terms?
    Dr. McCLELLAND - This mean bluish discoloration, bluish-black discoloration of the tissue. The eyes were somewhat protuberant, which is usually seen after massive head injuries denoting increased intracranial pressure, and it seemed that he perhaps was
    not making, at the time at least, spontaneous respiratory movements, but was receiving artificial respiration from a machine, an anesthesia machine.
    Mr. SPECTER - Who was operating that machine?
    Dr. McCLELLAND - The machine---there was a changeover, just as I came in, one of the doctors in the room, I don't recall which one, had been operating what we call an intermittent positive pressure breathing machine.
    Mr. SPECTER - Had that machine been utilized prior to your arrival?
    Dr. McCLELLAND - It was in use as I arrived, yes, and about the same time I arrived----this would be one other doctor who came in the room that I forgot about----Dr. Jenkins, M. T. Jenkins, professor of anesthesiology, came into the room with a larger
    anesthesia machine, which is a better type machine with which to maintain control of respiration, and this was then attached to the tube in the President's tracheotom; anyway, respiratory movements were being made for him with these two machines, which
    were in the process of being changed when I came in.
    Then, as I took my post to help with the tracheotomy, I was standing at the end of the stretcher on which the President was lying, immediately at his head, for purposes of holding a tracheotom, or a retractory in the neck line.
    Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe, if anything, as to the status of the neck wound when you first arrived?
    Dr. McCLELLAND - The neck wound, when I first arrived, was at this time converted into a tracheotomy incision. The skin incision had been made by Dr. Perry, and he told me---although I did not see that---that he had made the incision through a very small,
    perhaps less than one quarter inch in diameter wound in the neck.
    Mr. SPECTER - Do you recall whether he described it any more precisely than that?
    Dr. McCLELLAND - He did not at that time.
    Mr. SPECTER - Has he ever described it any more precisely for you?
    Dr. McCLELLAND - He has since that time.
    Mr. SPECTER - And what description has he given of it since that time?
    Dr. McCLELLAND - As well as I can recall, the description that he gave was essentially as I have just described, that it was a very small injury, with clear cut, although somewhat irregular margins of less than a quarter inch in diameter, with minimal
    tissue damage surrounding it on the skin.
    Mr. SPECTER - Now, was there anything left for you to observe of that bullet wound, or had the incision obliterated it?
    Dr. McCLELLAND - The incision had obliterated it, essentially, the skin portion, that is.
    Mr. SPECTER - Before proceeding to describe what you did in connection with the tracheostomy, will you more fully describe your observation with respect to the head wound?
    Dr. McCLELLAND - As I took the position at the head of the table that I have already described, to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of
    the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the
    occipital bone being fractured in its lateral haft, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior
    cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. There was a large amount of bleeding which was occurring mainly from the large venous channels in the skull which had been blasted open.

    His description of the head wound is perfectly compatible with the autopsy finding that the
    head wound was chiefly parietal, extending somewhat into the occipital and tempora regions.

    Dr. Kenneth Salyer, neurosurgical resident on duty that day:
    Mr. SPECTER - What was the President's condition at the time you arrived?
    Dr. SALYER - It was critical.
    Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe about him with respect to any wounds he may have sustained?
    Dr. SALYER - Well, I observed that he did have some sucking wound of some type on his neck, and that he also had a wound of his right temporal region--these were the two main wounds.
    Mr. SPECTER - Did you have an opportunity to observe his throat?
    Dr. SALYER - No; I really did not. I think there were a lot of people--a lot of doctors more closely around him. I might mention also, I think just right after I came in the room Dr. Clark and Dr. Grossman also arrived.

    The temporal bone is on the side of the head, basically the area around the ear. That is where we
    see the skull flap in the Z-film after Z313.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to chuckschuyler123@gmail.com on Thu Nov 2 07:46:58 2023
    On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 20:32:16 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chuckschuyler123@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 8:33:05?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
    On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 15:29:00 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
    <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MM-rqHroIDs

    I thought this was all over... ancient history, no-one's interested...
    Why are new documentaries coming out???

    I guess Chuckles got it wrong. :)

    I never said ...

    Stop lying...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to geowright1963@gmail.com on Thu Nov 2 07:47:47 2023
    On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 14:58:39 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
    <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 11:54:25?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 1:13:47?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    The trailer did not indicate who those doctors were that were discussing the wounds. If that
    panel discussion took place recently, none of the doctors on that panel looked old enough to
    have been in the ER the day of the assassination. Even a young resident in his mid to late
    twenties on the day of the assassination would be well into his eighties by now. None of that
    panel looked nearly that old which means they are forming opinions based on comments made
    by the ER team, not on any firsthand observations.
    I'm sure that they just went out and picked up some winos for a panel chat. >> Idiot.

    The only name I recognized was Robert McClelland ...

    Ignorant, aren't you?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to chuckschuyler123@gmail.com on Thu Nov 2 07:48:12 2023
    On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 20:34:50 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chuckschuyler123@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 10:54:25?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 1:13:47?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    The trailer did not indicate who those doctors were that were discussing the wounds. If that
    panel discussion took place recently, none of the doctors on that panel looked old enough to
    have been in the ER the day of the assassination. Even a young resident in his mid to late
    twenties on the day of the assassination would be well into his eighties by now. None of that
    panel looked nearly that old which means they are forming opinions based on comments made
    by the ER team, not on any firsthand observations.
    I'm sure that they just went out and picked up some winos for a panel chat. >> Idiot.


    Didn't ...

    Nope.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to davevonpein@aol.com on Thu Nov 2 07:49:27 2023
    On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 01:39:57 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
    <davevonpein@aol.com> wrote:

    On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 11:34:52?PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 10:54:25?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 1:13:47?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    The trailer did not indicate who those doctors were that were discussing the wounds. If that
    panel discussion took place recently, none of the doctors on that panel looked old enough to
    have been in the ER the day of the assassination. Even a young resident in his mid to late
    twenties on the day of the assassination would be well into his eighties by now. None of that
    panel looked nearly that old which means they are forming opinions based on comments made
    by the ER team, not on any firsthand observations.
    I'm sure that they just went out and picked up some winos for a panel chat. >>> Idiot.
    Didn't ...

    Nope. No citations you can't support.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to geowright1963@gmail.com on Thu Nov 2 07:51:00 2023
    On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 05:44:15 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
    <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 7:21:37?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 11:34:52?PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote: >> > Didn't some of the Parkland doctors get a chance on the PBS program NOVA in 1988 to review the autopsy photos and confirm the wounds essentially were the same as what they saw when they were trying to save JFK's life at the hospital?
    Are these the same doctors ?

    The trailer stated "They have not deviated from what the observed 60 years ago" so I thought it
    would be interesting to see what they had to say 60 years ago. Here are a couple accounts as
    testified to under oath before the Warren Commission:

    You *provably* don't believe their testimony and contemporary
    statements.

    You lose!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)