... Mulberry bush, mulberry bush, here we go 'round ... (Children's nursery rhyme)
Humes said [in what year?] the ruler was there to establish scale, when asked if it could be measuring something he said "no way, no way".
So you just need to establish that Humes recollection was correct. Good luck. You can start by telling us how many years elapsed between his autopsy and his recollection, and then cite the studies that establish that people are normally great at recalling things from that many years after the event.
Well, that red spot isn't the same shape, size, location or appearance of the small head wound mentioned in the autopsy records or doctors statements.
According to what expert authority? If you're telling us your layman's opinion, we've been through all that. We don't care to hear it. It's worthless. You needn't bother to treat us to your opinions any more, because they have no value.
It does not have raised edges characteristic of an entry wound.
According to what expert authority? If you're telling us your layman's opinion, we've been through all that. We don't care to hear it. It's worthless. It's worthless. You needn't bother to treat us to your opinions any more, because they have no value.
But I guess we have spend a few more moments entertaining the theory that red spot on the photo could be the entry wound.
The "theory" (as you call it) is the one entertained by all the qualified forensic pathologists who ever examined the extant autopsy materials, is it not?
The autopsy doctors never remembered parting the hear [hair] to reveal the small head wound.
They were asked this specific question? Where and when? Can you cite their answer? Or are you just supposing they didn't do this based on their failure to mention it? Why would you think parting the hair around the wound to better expose the wound for photography's sake is not the proper approach?
Dr. Humes also said [in what year?] that he remembered a close-up photo of the small head wound being taken, and such a photograph is not present in the official collection, as is tradition.
And this helps your argument exactly how? He remembers seeing something there is no record of. Does this call into question the photographic record, or his recollection? Justify your answer.
I've already brought up some of the phantom photographs that autopsy witnesses remember.
Yes, and you still have yet to establish they were ever real photographs, and not just false memories. We're still awaiting your evidence, rather than your assumptions about which choice is the correct answer.
The back wound photograph also features a patch of parted hair, but the patch appears to be somewhat different from the one on the BOH photos. The red mark is not easily apparent on that cowlick, or if it is, the hair isn't situated the same way.
This "patch appears ... different" according to what authority on photo interpretation? And you bring it up why exactly? What point are you trying to make?
Dr. Boswell, contrary to Humes, Finck and Stirnger who said [in what year?] they thought the red spot was probably blood, did say [in what year?] that he remembered that red spot as a blemish related to the large head wound. If that is true, then the red spot may have been significant enough to photograph.
It was photographed. With the hair parted. In the center of the photo. In focus. And with a ruler next to it. Remember? What more could you want to establish it was photographed? If the photo with all the above supporting it isn't sufficient to justify concluding it was photographed, what would it take for you to conclude it was photographed?
And if you're arguing that the red spot was only significant enough to photograph as a 'blemish', how much more significant would it be to photograph the actual entry wound?
And the fact that they differ on what the red spot is (a blemish vs. blood) apparently doesn't cause you to doubt their recollections at all, does it?
If the skull photograph depict the occipital-parietal area, the red spot could correlate to an exit from a small fragment which may have had to be sanitized from the record as far as Humes et. al were concerned (even if that could happen with a shot from the rear). Again, the full extent of what the autopsy recorded seems to have been sanitized to keep everything as vague as possible so the official story may be malleable.
This is just more of your supposition masquerading as evidence, is it not? Why should we give it any credence?
Lastly, there isn't even any proof that the red spot on the scalp correlates to the depressed cowlick fracture
Sigh. What proof did all the qualified forensic pathologists who examined the extant autopsy materials conclude was lacking? Can you tell us that? Otherwise, this is nothing more than the thinly disguised logical fallacy of an argument from incredulity.
The red spot on the BOH photographs is situated lower, between the EOP and cowlick fracture areas. So if that red spot correlated to the mark on the X-ray, the doctors would have to be pulling down the scalp.
According to what expert authority? If you're telling us your layman's opinion, we've been through all that. We don't care to hear it. It's worthless.
Why would they do that and potentially confuse anybody looking at the photographs?
Begging the question. You haven't established what you're questioning.
If I may summarize your arguments, they stem from two apparent sources -- decades later recollections combined liberally with your own opinions of what you see and think.
There is no actual evidence there.
Hank
