JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[MicahJava]

Tom Robinson corroborated Lipsey in a 1/12/77 HSCA interview.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md63.pdf

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/audio/HSCA_Robinson.htm

A track between the base of the head and the throat wound

The probing

And even something corroborating Paul O'Connor's recollections about a bullet fragment being found in the right intercostal muscle

 

[Tomtomkent]

And your point is?

Ten years after the fact a man remembered a bullet hole being closer to the base of the head than it was?

Well... it is a good job we have photographs, xrays, and that autopsy you have not read to clarify where he is in error.

 

[HSienzant]

Asked and answered above.

The conclusions of the autopsy changed when Humes spoke to Perry after the autopsy concluded and discovered there was originally a bullet wound in the neck.

So Robinson's recollection about the autopsy matching Lipsey's is already explained, if you understand my original point. Which you apparently didn't, because you're raising Robinson's recollection as if it's meaningful, and somehow overturns the conclusion the autopsy doctors reached. Moreover, Robinson wasn't at the autopsy, he cannot speak meaningfully of the autopsy doctors conclusions, he arrived at the end of the autopsy, and he was responsible for preparing the body for burial. He's a funeral director.

Moreover, Robinson admits he may have read about issues with the throat wound (obviously, in the conspiracy literature), not that he necessarily got that information from the autopsy doctors:

Something about the bullet exiting from there. I don't know whether I heard the physicians talking about it or whether I read it now.

So how valuable - exactly - is this recollection you cite?

Then you quote Robinson's self-professed hazy recollection of the autopsy surgeons using a probe in the HEAD (which he then includes himself somehow in the probing):

It was about an 18-inch piece of metal that we used.

Imagine that: A funeral director helping the autopsy doctors out with the probing of the President's body! This after you referenced a probe used on the back wound and the throat wound. How many more places are you going to suggest they used that probe? You appear to think that Robinson's recollection of a probe on the head somehow confirms the recollections of probes used elsewhere. It doesn't. It points out there's no uniformity on that issue whatsoever. And, could Robinson's recollection again be affected by what he read in the conspiracy literature?

And, as there's no mention of the thorax at all in Humes Warren Commission testimony (1964), and only this brief mention as an aside in his HSCA testimony (1978):

Dr. HUMES. Well, the first thing we did was make many photographs which we knew would obviously be required for a wide variety of purposes, took basically whole body X-rays and then proceeded with the examination of the two wounds that we very shortly detected were present, starting with the wound in the head and proceeding to the wound in the back of the neck, upper thorax.
Mr. CoRNWELL. Would it be accurate to state that the photographs and the X-rays were taken not only to document the condition of the body at the time you examined it, but also to provide a record of that event?
Dr. HUMES. I think that's obvious, yes, sir.

What should we conclude about Robinson's hazy recollection from 1977 to the HSCA?

Somehow I feel like there was something found in the thorax.

Not exactly sure of his recollections, is he?

Moreover, you appear to be ignoring the parts of Robinson's recollection that are inconvenient to your argument. For instance, he remembers the large exit wound in the head in the back of the skull, directly between the ears. Is that where you think the exit wound was? Where do you think the entry wound was?

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md63/html/Image01.htm

Does his recollection from 14 years after the fact overturn the Zapruder film, the Dealey Plaza witnesses like Zapruder and Newman, the autopsy, the autopsy photos, the autopsy x-rays and the testimony of Dr. Humes?

Or was he just wrong about some things?

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

The evidence points to Oswald for a simple reason - not because Oswald is the victim of a massive plot to frame him for killing Kennedy - but because he really did kill Kennedy with his rifle from the sixth floor of the Depository. That's why the evidence points to Oswald. To believe otherwise, you'd have to believe that framing Oswald was the goal of the conspiracy from the beginning, and killing JFK just a by-product of that goal.

Why'd "they" bother planting a WWII surplus weapon in the Depository and faking paperwork to make it look like Oswald bought it? Why'd "they" go to the trouble of altering wounds to make it look like Oswald did the shooting? Why'd "they" alter the autopsy photos and x-rays? Why'd "they" kill a policeman at 10th and Patton to make Oswald look more guilty? Why'd "they" swap the nearly whole bullet recovered in Parkland for another fired from Oswald's rifle? Why'd "they" plant Oswald's fingerprints on the triggerguard and a palmprint on the barrel? Why'd "they" kill witnesses years after the fact? Why'd "they" give Oswald a history as a political serial killer, shooting at General Walker in April of that year?

Think about it - all of that was supposedly done after killing Kennedy was already accomplished. "They" had gotten the deed done. Yet they kept at it for years, merely to frame a loser with a menial job filling book orders in a warehouse. And to hear some people talk, we're - oops - "they" are still at it, sending shills to argue misinformation on web forums more than five decades after the fact.

I keep saying that if he wants to find a conspiracy he's not going to find it in Dealey Plaza, and he's not going to find it in medical evidence he clearly doesn't understand. Worse, this is all ancient Tomfoolery that has been dead and buried and dug up and re-buried hundreds of times in the past 50 years.

It's just a parlor game.

 

[BStrong]

I keep saying that if he wants to find a conspiracy he's not going to find it in Dealey Plaza, and he's not going to find it in medical evidence he clearly doesn't understand. Worse, this is all ancient Tomfoolery that has been dead and buried and dug up and re-buried hundreds of times in the past 50 years.

It's just a parlor game.

It's the antecedent to the current mass cluster homicide incident CT's - it isn't this-or-that mental defective with a firearm that they are connected with and committed suicide with at the scene, it's THEM!

 

[MicahJava]

Asked and answered above.

The conclusions of the autopsy changed when Humes spoke to Perry after the autopsy concluded and discovered there was originally a bullet wound in the neck.

Well that's what we're arguing, aren't we? I am very dissatisfied with the explanation that Humes et. al only realized the throat wound was an actual bullet hole after the autopsy. That could be a lie or a half-truth so they can say "Yes, Arlen Specter, the throat wound can be whatever you want it to be".

So Robinson's recollection about the autopsy matching Lipsey's is already explained, if you understand my original point. Which you apparently didn't, because you're raising Robinson's recollection as if it's meaningful, and somehow overturns the conclusion the autopsy doctors reached. Moreover, Robinson wasn't at the autopsy, he cannot speak meaningfully of the autopsy doctors conclusions, he arrived at the end of the autopsy, and he was responsible for preparing the body for burial. He's a funeral director.

Nope, I really don't understand your original point. The concept of the throat wound as an exit wound, let alone an exit wound for a bullet that entered the base of the head, doesn't seem like an invention after the autopsy. While Robinson does admit that he might have "hazy recollections", it's a little pointless bringing that up if what he says matches Lipsey perfectly. They were there, and he remembers the doctors debating about what the throat wound could represent. He remembers that the doctors concluded the throat wound was an exit for a bullet that entered the base of the head, exactly what the early news leaks and Lee Rankin said. I am also not very sure that he arrived at the end of the autopsy, but that is not an issue I wish to spend my time arguing because I am not sure myself.

Moreover, Robinson admits he may have read about issues with the throat wound (obviously, in the conspiracy literature), not that he necessarily got that information from the autopsy doctors:

Something about the bullet exiting from there. I don't know whether I heard the physicians talking about it or whether I read it now.

So how valuable - exactly - is this recollection you cite?

It certainly doesn't seem like Robinson has read conspiracy literature, most likely ordinary newspaper reports if anything. He doesn't remember the autopsy professionals thinking the throat wound as an entrance, he remembers them thinking the throat wound was an exit just like Lipsey did. If Robinson was literally the only person saying the things that he said, it wouldn't be very valuable. Unfortunately, you must deal with him as yet another confirmation of how Lipsey remembers the autopsy. That is fair.

Then you quote Robinson's self-professed hazy recollection of the autopsy surgeons using a probe in the HEAD (which he then includes himself somehow in the probing):

It was about an 18-inch piece of metal that we used.

Imagine that: A funeral director helping the autopsy doctors out with the probing of the President's body! This after you referenced a probe used on the back wound and the throat wound. How many more places are you going to suggest they used that probe? You appear to think that Robinson's recollection of a probe on the head somehow confirms the recollections of probes used elsewhere. It doesn't. It points out there's no uniformity on that issue whatsoever. And, could Robinson's recollection again be affected by what he read in the conspiracy literature?

Unfortunately for you, it definitely seems like probing, with a special rod intended for the purpose, was done at the autopsy. Not just with fingers. He remembers them probing the base of the head just like Lipsey did, and Lipsey remembered the probe coming out of the throat wound.

And, as there's no mention of the thorax at all in Humes Warren Commission testimony (1964), and only this brief mention as an aside in his HSCA testimony (1978):

Dr. HUMES. Well, the first thing we did was make many photographs which we knew would obviously be required for a wide variety of purposes, took basically whole body X-rays and then proceeded with the examination of the two wounds that we very shortly detected were present, starting with the wound in the head and proceeding to the wound in the back of the neck, upper thorax.
Mr. CoRNWELL. Would it be accurate to state that the photographs and the X-rays were taken not only to document the condition of the body at the time you examined it, but also to provide a record of that event?
Dr. HUMES. I think that's obvious, yes, sir.

What should we conclude about Robinson's hazy recollection from 1977 to the HSCA?

Somehow I feel like there was something found in the thorax.

Not exactly sure of his recollections, is he?

Since we have two separate witnesses, O'Connor and Robinson, remembering a bullet fragment being found in that area of the body, any person with problem solving skills should be slightly suspicious that there is a cover-up afoot involving Humes and perhaps others. We must consider the possibility not only that a fragment exited the throat, but that another fragment took a similar path and got lodged in that part of the body.

Moreover, you appear to be ignoring the parts of Robinson's recollection that are inconvenient to your argument. For instance, he remembers the large exit wound in the head in the back of the skull, directly between the ears. Is that where you think the exit wound was? Where do you think the entry wound was?

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md63/html/Image01.htm

Does his recollection from 14 years after the fact overturn the Zapruder film, the Dealey Plaza witnesses like Zapruder and Newman, the autopsy, the autopsy photos, the autopsy x-rays and the testimony of Dr. Humes?

Or was he just wrong about some things?

Hank

Well, Consider that Robinson admitted that he mostly viewed the autopsy from the left side of Kennedy's body. I am really not here to argue that there was no big hole on the right-rear of the head. I can not ignore the Dealey Plaza witnesses who described seeing the right side of Kennedy's head explode, but I do get a creepy feeling when I see the Zapruder Film with those pitch-black shadows coincidentally obscuring the back of the head. Any real skeptic should. If there was a hole in the back of the head, I tend to think it has to co-exist with the right side of the head also having the appearance being damaged in the shooting.

 

[Axxman300]

It's the antecedent to the current mass cluster homicide incident CT's - it isn't this-or-that mental defective with a firearm that they are connected with and committed suicide with at the scene, it's THEM!

I've been hanging out over at WebSleuths.com and the first thing you learn there is that the fastest way to get caught is the stage a crime scene. The perps get caught up in thinking how the crime scene "should" look that they incriminate themselves.

Instead of coming up with a theory that Oswald was talked into shooting JFK by the dark force of his choice, MJ is driving in circles with non-existent evidence.

 

[Axxman300]

Alexandra Zapruder (Abraham's grand daughter) has a book out this week:

Twenty-Six Seconds: A Personal History of the Zapruder Film

Might be worth a look for history buffs, not so much if you're a CT buff.

 

[MicahJava]

Also HSienzant, do you find it likely that at any point in time during the autopsy, a metal probe was shoved from Kennedy's back wound to his throat wound?

 

[Tomtomkent]

When are we going to get a complete theory of who did the shooting, who manipulated the evidence, and why?

 

[Wolrab]

I find the whole topic of who killed the Kennedys stupid. I have it from a reliable source that it was you and me.

 

[Nonpareil]

When are we going to get a complete theory of who did the shooting

Oswald.

who manipulated the evidence

The conspiracy theorists.

and why?

Because they are very, very silly people.

 

[Border Reiver]

I find the whole topic of who killed the Kennedys stupid. I have it from a reliable source that it was you and me.

Can you please introduce yourself?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Can you please introduce yourself?

A man of Wealth and taste.

 

[JerryGarcia]

Woo hoo

 

[BStrong]

When are we going to get a complete theory of who did the shooting, who manipulated the evidence, and why?

In my home, it was Sam Giancana as instigator, LHO as fallguy (my Old Man - "that ******* won't last a week...) and some Chicago shooter doing the actual deed.

Motive - JFK was allowing RFK to go after The Outfit and RFK wasn't going to be bought off or scared off. Kill RFK and Uncle would never stop going after them, hit JFK and RFK goes away.

Carlos Marcello did not figure into the plan because modern nonsense notwithstanding, Carlos settled problems with money, not lead. The famous quote on CM was that "he knew how eveyrbody liked their coffee."

Training and experience in adult life lead me to discard the above.

 

[turingtest]

In my home, it was Sam Giancana as instigator, LHO as fallguy (my Old Man - "that ******* won't last a week...) and some Chicago shooter doing the actual deed.

Motive - JFK was allowing RFK to go after The Outfit and RFK wasn't going to be bought off or scared off. Kill RFK and Uncle would never stop going after them, hit JFK and RFK goes away.

Carlos Marcello did not figure into the plan because modern nonsense notwithstanding, Carlos settled problems with money, not lead. The famous quote on CM was that "he knew how eveyrbody liked their coffee."

Training and experience in adult life lead me to discard the above.

Funny (but nor really surprising) how what passes for a complete theory in CT-land as to who did it rarely gets much beyond "why" and almost never concretely into "how." They have no details for their devils...

 

[Axxman300]

I find the whole topic of who killed the Kennedys stupid. I have it from a reliable source that it was you and me.

And I told you to make sure Oswald didn't leave the building, which he did, and so I didn't have time to break the rifle down, hide it in the elevator shaft, and get to Parkland to fake enough X-rays.

That's the last conspiracy I work with you.

 

[MicahJava]

I think Doug Horne's summary is the closest to the truth regarding the history of the autopsy "conclusions", although he is working from the theory that the throat wound was an entrance. The autopsy doctors did investigate the throat wound as a bullet wound. While they did seem to toy around with the idea of a trajectory from the back wound to the throat wound, by shoving a probe between the two, they discarded that idea. We know at least three reasons why they initially rejected that: 1. Because they probed the back wound with a tool meant for the purpose and determined that it was most likely shallow, 2. the back wound was at a downward angle, and 3. a track between the back wound and throat wound would be an anatomical upwards trajectory. We know that the doctors were at least told that the suspected shooter was firing from above and behind. They considered the possibility that the bullet that hit the back deflected and lodged in a completely random part of the body more than the possibility of that bullet exiting the throat. If they were ordered not to dissect the throat wound, we know they they dissected the torso area and retrieved organs, so how sure can we be that somebody there wasn't peeking inside the body for more evidence of what the throat wound could represent?

So Humes, Boswell and Finck downplayed how thoroughly they investigated the throat wound in testimonies so they didn't have to list the reasons why they thought that theory wouldn't work. Also known as lying and withholding information. That's the minimum amount of cover-up that we know Humes et. al were engaged in.

 

[Axxman300]

And you've never considered that Doug Horne is a delusional cherry-picker with an agenda that gets his name linked to JFK? (like Oswald).

How about you demonstrate some original thinking and reasoning skills and get back to us.