JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[MicahJava]

You keep saying "Everybody who saw the body", yet ignore the autopsy, and those who performed it, disagree with you.

But, as has been pointed out before, that doesn't matter.

We can SEE the wound, in the photographs. Despite your bleating something is only a red smear, we can see it is a wound, with depth, exactly where the autopsy places it.

Tomtomkent, what is this?

NSFW - injury

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-h0Zz4xrxWL8/VddxAzaNwmI/AAAAAAABHDo/i5zn4ndkzSo/s1600/Autopsy-Photos-Cropped-Via-PatSpeer.com.gif

 

[Tomtomkent]

Tomtomkent, what is this?

[qimg]https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-h0Zz4xrxWL8/VddxAzaNwmI/AAAAAAABHDo/i5zn4ndkzSo/s1600/Autopsy-Photos-Cropped-Via-PatSpeer.com.gif[/qimg]

What difference will giving my answer again make? This is the fourth iteration of this thread. The autopsy records have been discussed at length.

At this point, I want to know if you even read the autopsy, so why don't you explain what the autopsy says it is, then give me a viable reason why I should not deffer to the judgement of those who performed the autopsy?

 

[MicahJava]

What difference will giving my answer again make? This is the fourth iteration of this thread. The autopsy records have been discussed at length.

At this point, I want to know if you even read the autopsy, so why don't you explain what the autopsy says it is, then give me a viable reason why I should not deffer to the judgement of those who performed the autopsy?

Enough silliness. The autopsy report says that the small head wound was 2 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance.

What is that thing that looks a lot like a hole in the skull?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Enough silliness. The autopsy report says that the small head wound was 2 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance.

Are you sure about that?

You keep saying it is silly, but you have yet to state if you read the autopsy document or not.

But hey ho. "Slightly" is a subjective term. Some might suggest the entry wound visible to everybody but you in the photographs is "slightly" above the occiptiat protruberance.

More likely you have read a conspiracy book that insists on the location being relative to the protruberance and not the occipital bone, which would, quite frankly, put it bang on the clearly photographed entry wound.

But by all means... continue to post photographs of a mark you want to squint at and call an alternative hole, without showing any sign that you know where on the skull you are looking at.

 

[MicahJava]

 

[Tomtomkent]

I have a new question:

If the autopsy DID describe the entry wound as being "2 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance", why is it that so many pathologists seem to read those records and materials so very differently:

The HSCA concluded the autopsy record places the entry wound Four Inches above the protrubence.

The four pathologists Ramsey Clark gave the autopsy records to in the sixties stated it was 25mm to the right of, and 100mm above the protrubence.

And throughout the HSCA discussion of the xrays, the discussion of the occipital defect is places consistently exactly where MichaJava says it wasn't...

Hmm.

One might almost think he has seen a few grainy photographs he is interpreting as a layman and had not read the autopsy itself...

 

[MicahJava]

I have a new question:

If the autopsy DID describe the entry wound as being "2 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance", why is it that so many pathologists seem to read those records and materials so very differently:

The HSCA concluded the autopsy record places the entry wound Four Inches above the protrubence.

The four pathologists Ramsey Clark gave the autopsy records to in the sixties stated it was 25mm to the right of, and 100mm above the protrubence.

And throughout the HSCA discussion of the xrays, the discussion of the occipital defect is places consistently exactly where MichaJava says it wasn't...

Hmm.

One might almost think he has seen a few grainy photographs he is interpreting as a layman and had not read the autopsy itself...

Probably because the shills realized that such a low hole in the head means Oswald didn't do it. The people who were there know the hole was low in the head.

What exactly do you think that object in the open-cranium photographs is? Why does it look like you can see the edges of the bone?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Probably because the shills realized that such a low hole in the head means Oswald didn't do it. The people who were there know the hole was low in the head.

And yet, when we read the autopsy, it appears to be because your interpretation was wrong. So... Did you ever read the autopsy itself?

What exactly do you think that object in the open-cranium photographs is? Why does it look like you can see the edges of the bone?

It may look like you can see the edge of the bone to you but your opinion is worth nothing.

You identified where you think that mark tallies to the colour photographs and there was no wound where you marked, and one where the autopsy places it (oh look, the shills are right...)

 

[Tomtomkent]

Of course, we are not even addressing an obvious question yet:

Does the "wound" MichaJava keeps asking me to identify match to the position he keeps claiming the entry wound should be?

 

[BStrong]

Enough silliness. The autopsy report says that the small head wound was 2 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance.

What is that thing that looks a lot like a hole in the skull?

You're making the assertion, you tell us.

BTW, your gifl looks like tribbles humping.

 

[BStrong]

Of course, we are not even addressing an obvious question yet:

Does the "wound" MichaJava keeps asking me to identify match to the position he keeps claiming the entry wound should be?

No need. S/he don't need no stinking witnesses, why would S/he be concerned with consistency of physical evidence?

 

[MicahJava]

Of course, we are not even addressing an obvious question yet:

Does the "wound" MichaJava keeps asking me to identify match to the position he keeps claiming the entry wound should be?

The autopsy professionals labled the open-cranium photographs as showing posterior skull.

Since you have a theory that the small head wound was not low in the skull, why was the base of the skull fractured?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Since you have a theory that the small head wound was not low in the skull, why was the base of the skull fractured?

Well, I am no pathologist, but I would suggest it was the trauma of the gunshot. The pressure of the bullet caused mass ejecta from the exit wound, but all that force would have been spreading out through the skull. What do you expect to happen when it reaches the skull bones?

 

[MicahJava]

Well, I am no pathologist, but I would suggest it was the trauma of the gunshot. The pressure of the bullet caused mass ejecta from the exit wound, but all that force would have been spreading out through the skull. What do you expect to happen when it reaches the skull bones?

Geez, how much of the skull do you think was destroyed by the bullet?

And I'm guessing you think the open-cranium photo depicts the forehead?

 

[Axxman300]

There had to be an entry wound, right? If one existed, it existed low in the head.

Nope. You're "working" from bad information.

A fountain of blood? This isn't Monty Python. The EOP bullet grazed the brain and smashed the floor of the skull. The blood would've been on the inside of the head.

So when you say you do "research" I'm guessing this does not include looking at any of the hundreds of online videos of people being shot in the head, because if you did you'd begin to understand the depths of your ridiculousness.

I'm also guessing you've never been punched in the nose, because it's a wonderful learning experience about blood pressure as it relates to the head, and how your body works hard to fight gravity by placing large veins to direct a heavy flow of blood in and out of your head.

Bullets, even a .22, are worse than a fist.

A lot of blood was indeed reported to be coming out of Kennedy's mouth.

Almost as if the wound in his upper back had hit his windpipe. Weird.

I mean, you seem to not understand that that the brain is sealed in the skull, and a subsonic round won't pass through the skull, and a wound in the back of the head is nowhere near the throat, and while the brain hemorrhages - none of that blood goes anywhere but out of the hole the bullet made coming in.

You're really not good at this.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Geez, how much of the skull do you think was destroyed by the bullet?

The entry wound, and the notch on the exit.
The rest was trauma damage.

Your asking suggests you have little idea of how bullet wounds work.

 

[Axxman300]

Geez, how much of the skull do you think was destroyed by the bullet?

All of that damage came from the Carcano round. It is just that devastating.

 

[BStrong]

The autopsy professionals labled the open-cranium photographs as showing posterior skull.

Since you have a theory that the small head wound was not low in the skull, why was the base of the skull fractured?

S.F. Chronicle writers stated Hundreds Dead in Huge Quake. 63 people lost their lives. What possible answer that takes the known facts into consideration explains the discrepancy?

 

[MicahJava]

Axxman - Just google "do gunshots to the head always create a large blood splatter?". You're making things up. And I'm saying the bullet only grazed the brain before smashing the posterior base of the skull. Of course, there's no expectation that any projectile would go in a straight line after this, so something could indeed exit the throat.

 

[BStrong]

Axxman - Just google "do gunshots to the head always create a large blood splatter?". You're making things up. And I'm saying the bullet only grazed the brain before smashing the posterior base of the skull. Of course, there's no expectation that any projectile would go in a straight line after this, so something from this could indeed exit the throat.

Why do you expect other posters to make your case?

If you can't be bothered to bring facts into evidence why should anyone else?

ETA: someone other than the usual suspect may be interested in learning something about GSW's. This is a good place to start:

http://www.tdcaa.com/sites/default/files/page/5 FRI INV Molina Gunshot Wounds.pdf