JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[traxy]

They wrote several reports, nearly all of which are free online. Feel free to familiarize yourself with them.

You never answered my previous question though. Why did they take so much time and effort washing and parting the hair and lining up the camera to take a picture of what you claim was nothing? And if it was a blood spot, why was it not washed away when they washed his hair?

Seems like a waste, don't you think?

 

[Axxman300]

If the FBI would have checked for metal fouling, they very well could have eliminated all other days the weapon was fired. As it stands today, there are bullets that are traced back to the rifle but when they were fired is still open. The chain of custody was sloppy, at best, as we have numerous situations where evidence came after the fact: 1. the magic bullet 2. the spy camera 3. the blanket for the rifle 4. the bag that the rifle came in was never located 5. the brain and I can go with others but the point is made.

Below are links that speak within their site about metal fouling. It is not uncommon, it is something that is emphasized for maintenance of the firearm and how fouling affects accuracy.

All the FBI would have found was that the rifle had been fired. There was no test to determine WHEN it was fired in 1963, and the FBI can't do it now.

As for the bullets, we have a good idea of when they were fired because they dug parts of them out of the body.

JFK's brain was reburied with his body when it was move to his final resting place at Arlington at the request of RFK.

 

[MicahJava]

Were there bullet fragments in the alternative spot?

Would you kindly mark the approximate location where you would expect to find the EOP wound?

The only possibility for that thing having any depth is if the red spot is a bit of "torn lacerated scalp", as explained by Boswell, and a tiny fragment got involved somehow. The open cranium photos might suggest so:

NSFW - autopsy photo

 

[MicahJava]

They wrote several reports, nearly all of which are free online. Feel free to familiarize yourself with them.

You never answered my previous question though. Why did they take so much time and effort washing and parting the hair and lining up the camera to take a picture of what you claim was nothing? And if it was a blood spot, why was it not washed away when they washed his hair?

Seems like a waste, don't you think?

What on earth are you talking about? Kennedy's hair is wet in all of the autopsy photos. There's also the simple concept of washing the brains out of the President's hair.

3 BOH photos were taken from a similar angle, 2 of them are in color and nearly identical. I already said that these three or so photographs could've just been taken to give a full view of the condition of his posterior/side area. And how do you know "the hair was parted especially for that photo"? Did you read the 1977 testimonies of Humes and Boswell? They both disagreed that the red spot could have been the entry wound.

 

[Elagabalus]

Would you kindly mark the approximate location where you would expect to find the EOP wound?

The only possibility for that thing having any depth is if the red spot is a bit of "torn lacerated scalp", as explained by Boswell, and a tiny fragment got involved somehow. The open cranium photos might suggest so:

NSFW - autopsy photo

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/iR2Yoyi.jpg[/qimg]

This is your narrative. You tell me.

 

[traxy]

What on earth are you talking about? Kennedy's hair is wet in all of the autopsy photos.

Near the top of the head where the entry wound is located is wet. Nearer to the bottom where you circled your phantom spots, the head is dry. Why is that?

3 BOH photos were taken from a similar angle, 2 of them are in color and nearly identical.

And all of them have that red spot as the focal point of the photo.

Not one single back of head picture focuses on this supposed lower entry wound you keep politicking for.

Did they not think a bullet wound in the back of the presidents head was important enough to photograph directly?

Did you read the 1977 testimonies of Humes and Boswell? They both disagreed that the red spot could have been the entry wound.

I quoted Humes from his HSCA testimony where he clarifies that opinion. After examining the blown up photos and referencing his report, he agrees that the red spot that is the focal point in every BOH photo is in fact the entry wound.

Why didn't the autopsy photographers snap a clear, direct and unobstructed picture of this lower wound you believe exists?

 

[MicahJava]

Near the top of the head where the entry wound is located is wet. Nearer to the bottom where you circled your phantom spots, the head is dry. Why is that?



And all of them have that red spot as the focal point of the photo.

You're just repeating very flimsy evidence. I can see how the photographs could be misleading, but they aren't the small wound and Boswell knew it.

Not one single back of head picture focuses on this supposed lower entry wound you keep politicking for.

Did they not think a bullet wound in the back of the presidents head was important enough to photograph directly?

There are lost autopsy photographs. There is also the F8 autopsy photograph.

I quoted Humes from his HSCA testimony where he clarifies that opinion. After examining the blown up photos and referencing his report, he agrees that the red spot that is the focal point in every BOH photo is in fact the entry wound.

Why didn't the autopsy photographers snap a clear, direct and unobstructed picture of this lower wound you believe exists?

Dr. Humes signed off on the autopsy report with Boswell's wound placements, and so did Dr. Burkley, the President's personal physician, as well as Admiral
Galloway, a witness to the autopsy. Humes' descriptions of the wounds created the Rydberg drawings.

The bit of testimony about Humes agreeing with the cowlick entry was given on 9/7/1978, while testimony earlier on 9/16/77 has Humes making no comment when Boswell states on no uncertain terms that remembers the red spot being a small scalp defect, and the real small wound was much lower. Like I've said before, Dr. Humes may simply be forgetting about the reasons why the red spot can not be the small head wound.

He also never retracted his earlier comments about the ruler not measuring the red spot. If you think the BOH photos depict the ruler being used to measure the wound, why would they be pulling back the scalp so that the actual location of the wound recedes? And most importantly, why does the original autopsy measurement not match the size of the red spot? The small wound was described as 15x6mm on the scalp and "ragged,slanted" (drawings indicate the wound was to the left), the red spot in the BOH photograph is 12mm and teardrop-shaped. Just in case anybody is seriously considering that the autopsy doctors didn't know how to use a ruler, the diameter of the back wound on the other photo matches fine with the original measurements.

According to Humes' final testimony, "We described the wound of entrance in the posterior scalp as being above and to the right of the external occipital protuberance, a bony knob on the back of the head"

An elliptical, ragged, slanted hole near a "bony knob" in the skull? Hmmm....

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-h0Zz4xrx...0/Autopsy-Photos-Cropped-Via-PatSpeer.com.gif

You sort of have Humes as half a witness, with the disadvantage of his retractions coming long after he already produced unambiguous evidence proving the cowlick entry wound wrong. Do I even need to bring up that they got Humes to intentionally raise the back wound on the Rydberg drawings? This whole situation is just another back wound blunder.


Can there be a more desperate plea for some evidence of a cowlick entry wound? Why not real evidence?

 

[MicahJava]

Dr. James Humes Warren Commission testimony:


Dr. PETTY: Can I go back to another interpretation which is very important to this committee? I don't really mean to belabor the point, but we need to be certain, as certain as we can be-and I'm showing you now photograph No.15, and here, to put it in the record, is the posterior hairline or margin of the hair of the late President, and there, near the midline, and just a centimeter or two above the hairline , is an area that you refer to as the in-shoot wound ?

Dr. HUMES. Yes, sir.

-

1978 HSCA testimony of Pierre Finck, autopsy pathologist and chief of the wound ballistics pathology branch at Walter Reed Medical Center:

Dr. Petty. Which one are you pointing to?

Dr. Finck. The wound of entry.

Dr. Petty. And that is near the hairline or that is up toward the upper
portion of the ear?

Dr. Finck. The best I can do for the wound of entry in the back of the head.

Dr. Wecht. She still does not have anything to show which you are referring
to. Describe it so the stenographer can get it down.

Dr. Finck. In the lower half of the photograph.Would that be good enough
identification for the record?

Dr. Petty. This is the one by the hairline.

Dr. Wecht. By the hairline.

Mr. PURDY. We have here a black and white blowup of that same spot. You previously mentioned that your attempt here was to photograph the crater, I think was the word that you used.

Dr. FINCK. In the bone, not in the scalp, because to determine the direction of the projectile the bone is a very good source of information so I emphasize the photographs of the crater seen from inside the skull. What you are showing me is soft tissue wound in the scalp.

Dr. PETTY. I won't comment. I just want to be sure that this is what you feel is the in-shoot wound and that is near the hairline and not the -- I hate to use any term to describe it but not the object near the central portion of the film near the end of the ruler.

Mr. PURDY. The red spot in the cowlick area. Dr. Finck, upon examining these two areas, what opinion do you have as to what, if anything, that red spot in the upper portions?

Dr. FINCK. I don't know what it is.

Mr. PURDY. We have here a black and white blowup, enlargement No. 16, of the upper area just to the right of the centimeter ruler. I wonder if that gives you any information as to whether you believe -- as to what you believe that could be.

Dr. FINCK. Does that correspond to this photograph here?

Mr. PURDY. Yes.

Dr. FINCK. I don't know what it is. How are these photographs identified as coming from the autopsy of President Kennedy?


-


Warren Commission Testimony by Roy Kellerman:

Mr. KELLERMAN: Entry into this man's head was right below that wound, right here.

Mr. SPECTER: Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the right of the ear about the lower third of the ear?

Mr. KELLERMAN: Right. But it was in the hairline, sir.

Mr. SPECTER: In his hairline?

Mr. KELLERMAN: Yes, sir.

Mr. SPECTER: Near the end of his hairline?

Mr. KELLERMAN: Yes, sir.

Mr. SPECTER: What was the size of that aperture?

Mr. KELLERMAN: The little finger.

Mr. SPECTER: Indicating the diameter of the little finger.

Mr. KELLERMAN: Right.

-

1996 AARB Deposition of John Stringer, autopsy photographer:

Q: That's going to be my next question for you. Are you able to identify the
hole that the
doctors identified on the night of the autopsy as being the entrance wound
in the skull?

A: I think this was a piece of bone, but it was down near there - right
about in there. (Stringer is pointing out this in the BOH photo: NSFW - autopsy photo

)

Q: You're referring to what appears to be a piece of matter or something -

A: Yes.

Q: - that is near the hairline?

A: Mm-hmm. But it was near there.

Q: And you're certain that that's where the doctors identified the entrance
wound as being; is that correct?

A: Yeah. Yeah, I would think so. That's I what I remember.

Q: I'd like to point out the spot that appears somewhat red that is near the end of the ruler, and ask you whether that was an entrance wound, or whether the doctors during the night of the autopsy identified that as an entrance wound?

A: It looks like blood. I would say it was. There was blood all over the place. But I don't think it was anything out of the ordinary. I don't think there was a hole there for the bullet wound. You would have seen the hole.


Stringer goes on to say that he does not remember if he took a clearer photograph of the small wound, but that it could be one of the dark spots in the BOH photos.

-

1996 AARB deposition of Dr. Boswell:

Q. I'd like you to notice in that photograph- -and, again, we're still talking about the fourth view--that there is a little white marking--I don't know what it is--that is very near the hairline. (pointing to this in the BOH photo: NSFW - autopsy photo

)

A. Here?

Q. Yes. Do you see that either matter of tissue or something--

A. I have seen that and worried and wondered about it for all these many years. Some people-- many people have alleged that to be the wound. I don't think it is.

Q. In relationship to that white marking, whatever it is, could you say or describe approximately where the entrance wound was, where the entrance wound would be in relationship to that?

A. Well, I think that the entrance wound is up in here someplace. I'm talking like a couple of centimeters above the hairline and 4 centimeters to the left of the ear. But I can't argue with that. I don't know what that is. I've seen this in other photographs. In some areas, it's a little translucent bubble. I think that the wound of entrance is up in here.

Q. Okay. What I'd like to ask you to do is measure with the centimeter measure here. Maybe if we can--

A. You can't--well, okay. Let's see. This is--

Q. You don't need to try and get it to correspond to the ruler in the photograph.

A. Well, this is about two to one, so--

Q. Just if you can do it on the actual measurement.

A. You want me to measure this?

Q. Measure it from--approximately the distance from that white spot that is on the--

A. Where I think the wound of entrance is?

Q. Yes, that's right, what the distance is.

A. Okay. I think this is...about 3.5 centimeters with this scale.

Q. Okay. So if President Kennedy were standing erect, then--and we're talking about the measurements corresponding to the photograph and not to real life. But from what I was understanding, you were saying that the measurement would be approximately 3.5 centimeters at approximately a 45-degree angle from that white spot, that is, if President Kennedy were standing erect? Is that fair?


A. Yes.

Q. And it's in the direction towards the right ear?

A. Toward the ear. That's maybe like 30 degrees.

Q. And the point that you are estimating that the entrance wound was located, is that the location that was previously recorded as approximately 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital--

A. Right.

Q. Okay. Now, if we could go to the other wounds there, could you identify where the entrance wound was in the body of President Kennedy, outside of the scalp now? Does that wound that you're pointing to correspond to the larger wound that is to the right of the ruler in the photograph? Again, assuming President Kennedy were standing erect.


A. Yes.

Q. So it's the wound that comes closer to being towards the tip of the ruler towards the neck?

A. No, this is blood clot down here. This is not wound.

Q. You're referring to a second marking that is somewhat below--

A. Right.

Q. --the larger marking. Was the ruler covering, the ruler in the photograph covering any other wound on the back--

A. No.

Q. --that you're aware of?

A. It's just about over the vertebral bodies, the midline. There's nothing underneath it.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Your questions alone show that you have little knowledge, that is not a bad thing unless you are passing yourself off as an Expert. These are sophomoric questions that have no bearing on the efficacy of your position. Plain and simple... the WC asked if it was tested, so somewhere along the line the Commission felt this was an adequate question. They knew they were talking to an FBI agent and the agent did not say... "this is not part of our procedure, why did you ask me this question"? I also don't recall reading where Agent Frazier admonished McCloy for even bringing it up and in fact, Frazier was aware of metal fouling unlike most on this forum.

My expertise or otherwise is not in question.

What is very interesting is your consistent avoidance of an answer you should be able to give, if you had researched this at all, as a layman or an expert.

Where in the relevant text book is the test you advocate described as standard procedure?

You keep trying to fob me off, and dance around it. But I want you to show me it was standard procedure at the time. You have not.

The text book states there is a way to see if the gun had been fired at all, at any time. You specifically said this was not the test you referred to, and that corrosion rates gave a time scale. You specifically said that other days could be eliminated.

So. Show me that procedure, in the book used by the FBI as their guidelines, or there will be no reason to assume you know which procedures they could, would, or may feel inclined to follow.

 

[Tomtomkent]

You are not plausible, my credentials are impeccable and no matter how often or how loud you yell it will not change. I taught gun safety for so many years it is embarrassing, I grew up with one of the nation's best after market stock manufacturers and as a matter of fact it started in his garage and I saw first hand how to make stocks and barreling is a step child to the stocks, one of my sons father-in-law is a former police officer and his best friend owns one of the top 3 reloading manufacturing company in the nation while my former wife's cousins own the nation's 3rd largest ammunition company... I have discussed this with all of them so I am speaking not only with personal experience but with collaborative conversations.

This thread is old as not one of you speak with any experience and/or knowledge. You might as well go back and argue any and everything that hits the radar if you know it or not.

I'm sorry, which of those credentials is relevant?
When I was taught firearms safety, they did not mention forensic analysis.
They did not cover methodology of crime labs in examining firearms.
When did you work in the crime lab?
How many times have you tested gun barrel residue to create a timescale of firing, and with what accuracy?
Was this during the 1960s? For the FBI?

 

[Tomtomkent]

The go no-go gauge eliminates a variable. This is basic but I do not expect you to understand. Metal fouling is elementary and yet it confuses you but it does not put others at risk. Go on the Internet and just "google" barrel fouling FBI... now go forward and educate yourself.

Oh wow. Go and "Google". So when we find nothing that supports your claim, you can say that our google results differ? Or we checked the wrong sites?

This is called a "Citation". It is the correct way to back up an argument with pertinent information.
First we give a relevant source:

Frank Lundquist, Methods of Forensic Science, Volume I, (1962)

This is the standard forensic text, and as far as I can find, the book those working in crime labs would have on their shelves.
Then we give a page number. (628)
Then we give the pertinent information.

However, it is practically impossible to say how long the residue left by firing of powders (or primers) has been in a barrel.

Therefore, if the firearm has not been carefully cleaned after firing, all that can be said is that it has been fired.

Your uncited and unreferenced claims otherwise will not convince anybody.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Ok, enough fannying around. Both out resident CTists want to argue endlessly over two small points.

Where is the theory that offers a better narrative for that day?

Where is the timeline that covers the assassination and cover up in detail?

 

[HSienzant]

All the FBI would have found was that the rifle had been fired. There was no test to determine WHEN it was fired in 1963, and the FBI can't do it now.

As for the bullets, we have a good idea of when they were fired because they dug parts of them out of the body.

JFK's brain was reburied with his body when it was move to his final resting place at Arlington at the request of RFK.

Bolded is untrue. One nearly whole bullet was found after falling off a stretcher in Parkland Hospital. Two large fragments were found in the Presidential limousine the evening of the assassination. Three spent shells were found in the Depository at the window where numerous witnesses saw an assassin or a rifle. All six of these pieces of evidence were ballistically traceable back to the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository.

No bullet fragments matchable to that weapon were ever recovered from either body. A few small fragments of lead were taken from JFK's head at autopsy, and another few from Connally's injured wrist. But none of these were of sufficient size or had any lands or grooves that could be matched to any weapon.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Would you kindly mark the approximate location where you would expect to find the EOP wound?

The only possibility for that thing having any depth is if the red spot is a bit of "torn lacerated scalp", as explained by Boswell, and a tiny fragment got involved somehow. The open cranium photos might suggest so:

NSFW - autopsy photo

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/iR2Yoyi.jpg[/qimg]

You have magical fragments doing all sorts of things, but never explain why these magical bullets were never found in the body, despite full body x-rays that should have revealed their presence.

Maybe, as a layman, you're just misinterpreting the photographic evidence? How many autopsies have you witnessed?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

What on earth are you talking about? Kennedy's hair is wet in all of the autopsy photos. There's also the simple concept of washing the brains out of the President's hair.

But the point of the prior poster is clear, and you appear to be ignoring it:

(a) If the hair was washed to remove blood and brains, why was what you called "the red blood spot" still there, if it's not a bullet wound?

There's also these three points raised previously by me, that you never responded to:

(b) Why would the hair be parted there, and not at the supposed EOP bullet wound entry site, if the purpose of these photos is to document the wounds?

(c) Why would the photo center this 'red spot' and not the EOP bullet wound entry site?

(d) Why would the ruler be near the 'red spot' and not the EOP bullet wound entry site?

There's plenty of evidence in that photo that reveals the bullet wound entry site, excluding anything except the photo.

3 BOH photos were taken from a similar angle, 2 of them are in color and nearly identical. I already said that these three or so photographs could've just been taken to give a full view of the condition of his posterior/side area. And how do you know "the hair was parted especially for that photo"? Did you read the 1977 testimonies of Humes and Boswell? They both disagreed that the red spot could have been the entry wound.

And yet, NINE years before that, in 1968, at the Clay Shaw trial, one of the three autopsy surgeons was already professing an inability to recall precise details. Your reliance on recollections nearly 14 years after the fact is not going to convince anyone their recollections are correct.

Mr Oser: Your Honor, I would ask Your Honor to direct the witness to answer my question. I will ask you the question one more time: Why did you not dissect the track of the bullet wound that you have described today and you saw at the time of the autopsy at the time you examined the body? Why? I ask you to answer that question.
Col. Finck: As I recall I was told not to, but I don't remember by whom.
. . .
Mr Oser: Could it have been one of the Admirals or one of the Generals in the room?
Col. Finck: I don't recall.
. . .
Mr Oser: But you were told not to go into the area of the neck, is that your testimony?
Col. Finck: From what I recall, yes, but I don't remember by whom.

So if Finck's memory of specific details was failing him in 1968, why should we believe Humes and Boswell were immune from this nine years later?

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

You have magical fragments doing all sorts of things, but never explain why these magical bullets were never found in the body, despite full body x-rays that should have revealed their presence.

Maybe, as a layman, you're just misinterpreting the photographic evidence? How many autopsies have you witnessed?

Hank

If a subsonic bullet entered the EOP, it could have deformed and exited the throat to create the wound seen at Parkland hospital. If that happened, what happened once it exited is up to how much you can say it might've deflected.

 

[MicahJava]

But the point of the prior poster is clear, and you appear to be ignoring it:

(a) If the hair was washed to remove blood and brains, why was what you called "the red blood spot" still there, if it's not a bullet wound?

There's also these three points raised previously by me, that you never responded to:

(b) Why would the hair be parted there, and not at the supposed EOP bullet wound entry site, if the purpose of these photos is to document the wounds?

(c) Why would the photo center this 'red spot' and not the EOP bullet wound entry site?

(d) Why would the ruler be near the 'red spot' and not the EOP bullet wound entry site?

There's plenty of evidence in that photo that reveals the bullet wound entry site, excluding anything except the photo.



And yet, NINE years before that, in 1968, at the Clay Shaw trial, one of the three autopsy surgeons was already professing an inability to recall precise details. Your reliance on recollections nearly 14 years after the fact is not going to convince anyone their recollections are correct.

Mr Oser: Your Honor, I would ask Your Honor to direct the witness to answer my question. I will ask you the question one more time: Why did you not dissect the track of the bullet wound that you have described today and you saw at the time of the autopsy at the time you examined the body? Why? I ask you to answer that question.
Col. Finck: As I recall I was told not to, but I don't remember by whom.
. . .
Mr Oser: Could it have been one of the Admirals or one of the Generals in the room?
Col. Finck: I don't recall.
. . .
Mr Oser: But you were told not to go into the area of the neck, is that your testimony?
Col. Finck: From what I recall, yes, but I don't remember by whom.

So if Finck's memory of specific details was failing him in 1968, why should we believe Humes and Boswell were immune from this nine years later?

Hank

I already gave answers to all of that and acknowledged that the red spot could be a minor wound, and that it might've even been responsible for creating that small prick you see on the peeled scalp on the open cranium photo.

 

[Tomtomkent]

If a subsonic bullet entered the EOP, it could have deformed and exited the throat to create the wound seen at Parkland hospital. If that happened, what happened once it exited is up to how much you can say it might've deflected.

So, your theory is that a bullet we have no evidence for, which would have to be of a smaller calibre, fired at shorter ranger, from a weapon for which there was also no evidence, entered through a wound you have failed to identify, and for which you offer no convincing evidence (and is rebutted directly by the sources you cite) exited through a wound for which there is no medical reason to suspect, and vanished without further evidence, leaving no viable traces?

 

[Tomtomkent]

I already gave answers to all of that and acknowledged that the red spot could be a minor wound, and that it might've even been responsible for creating that small prick you see on the peeled scalp on the open cranium photo.

Did you explain why the good doctor thought it was the entry wound when he looked at the photographs? Why does he disagree with you?

 

[traxy]

I already gave answers to all of that and acknowledged that the red spot could be a minor wound, and that it might've even been responsible for creating that small prick you see on the peeled scalp on the open cranium photo.

Small wound caused by what?