JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[HSienzant]

Why do you think Kellerman was talking about the white spot? He said he saw a hole, not a nodule of fat.

I don't. I am trying to figure out where you place the entry and exit wounds and tryin to make sense of your argument. Where do you place these wounds, and where do you see them in the extant photographs? Here's what I asked: "So you think the white spot (which the HSCA forensic pathologists -- all of them eminently qualified to render an opinion and they concluded it was a piece of human tissue or fat) is in fact the entry wound?"

Not sure how you go from that question asking what YOU think to concluding I am thinking Kellerman said anything about the white spot.

I am asking where YOU put the wounds. You have yet to say.

And "right below" is nowhere near as accurate as pointing to "the bottom of the hairline immediately to the right of the ear about the lower third of the ear", "near the end of his hairline".

Already has been pointed out to you what's wrong with this argument. You use the hard evidence (like the photos and x-rays) to validate the recollections, not the other way around. Well, to be precise, everyone else on this board does that. You appear to be doing the precise opposite of that.

Where do you place the wounds, and why?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Dr. Pierre Finck was a gunshot wound expert and said the red spot looks like it could even be something as simple as dried blood. And he was there examining Kennedy's body. [emphasis added]

So when did he say this? On the night of 11/22/63, during the autopsy? Or decades later? Enquiring minds want need to know. It appears you're trying to leave the impression it was during the autopsy. How come you seldom give the dates of these statements, nor quote them directly?

So if we want to say it's a wound, it could be any of a variety of different kinds of wounds before we start considering entry wound. Deal?

Entry and exit are the only two varieties I am familiar with. Are you now going to argue the red spot, which you previously talked of being 'a blemish' or 'blood', is now an 'exit wound'?

Anything but what the HSCA forensic pathology panel concluded, or what the evidence indicates, eh - an entry wound?

Hank

 

[bknight]

So what's the next step?

I would consult the HSCA forensic panel conclusions and determine what they thought, based on their viewing of all the extant autopsy materials (not limited to the autopsy photos and x-rays leaked to the public). Once I saw what they thought based on their training, education, and experience, I would weigh it against my own meager understanding of what wounds to the skull look like, based on my own lack of training, education, and experience.

I would then conclude, rightly, I think, that they knew more than me about this, and they reached the right conclusion (barring overwhelming evidence to the contrary).

This is called an appeal to legitimate authority. Too many people confuse an appeal to legitimate authority with an appeal to illegitimate authority, or don't accept any appeals to authority whatsoever (they think all such appeals are logical fallacies -- but they are not).

This site does a great job of differentiating between illegitimate appeals to authority and legitimate appeals to authority: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

MicahJava takes a different approach apparently, and after concluding that the red spot doesn't look like an entry wound, starts looking for evidence it's not an entry wound. He dismisses everything the HSCA forensic panel concluded, and based on his own conclusion it's not an entry wound, searches the testimony -- some of it given a third of a century after the autopsy -- for anything that appears to support his conclusion. In other words, what he appears to be doing is reaching a conclusion based on his own meager understanding of what wounds should look like, then tries to justify that conclusion by searching for evidence that supports his conclusion.

Ultimately, of course, given how much this case has been investigated, he finds some statements that support his viewpoint and takes great pride in pointing them out to us. It apparently doesn't matter to MicahJava how many decades elapsed until the testimony was given, or even if the witness he is quoting gave contradictory testimony before or since. All that apparently matters to MicahJava is that he can be seen to support his conclusion with statements by some of the principals.

I think that's the wrong approach, as you shouldn't reach the conclusion and then find reasons to support it. You should examine the evidence and let the evidence direct you to the conclusion.

Evidence first, conclusion second. Not the other way around.

Hank

I would go with the experts testimony and findings, but then I'm not a CT.

 

[MicahJava]

I would go with the experts testimony and findings, but then I'm not a CT.

Are you referring to the experts who weren't actually there examining Kennedy's body?

Well, much earlier, I posted a list of experts who examined the x-rays and didn't identify any specific spot representing an entry wound. By default, this would make the cowlick fracture just a fracture. So it's a complete falsehood to say that the cowlick fracture on the x-rays being an entry wound is a settled science.

And any system where you have a "panel" of experts trying to determine something is bound to have people going along to get along. And we know that the HSCA took some dirty shortcuts, such as Dr. Humes being coerced into testifying in support of the cowlick entry theory.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Dr. Pierre Finck was a gunshot wound expert and said the red spot looks like it could even be something as simple as dried blood. And he was there examining Kennedy's body. So if we want to say it's a wound, it could be any of a variety of different kinds of wounds before we start considering entry wound. Deal?

No deal.

Why would anybody accept that nonsense?

Why are you not addressing the simple point that the reason photographs and records are taken, is to be the objective measure against which we decide if witness memory is accurate. You are trying to disprove the entry wound I can see in that photograph, and to try and make every other photograph fit where you wish there was a wound by saying somebody remembered it differently.

Of course they did. That's how memory works. But objective evidence trumps it every time. No matter how hard you disbelieve.

If you want to have this conversation the least you could do is try to understand why you are not convincing us, and offer actual evidence that actually supports your assertions.

 

[HSienzant]

Why do you think Ida Dox was coerced into drawing her sketch with raised edges around the red spot?

And we know that the HSCA took some dirty shortcuts, such as Dr. Humes being coerced into testifying in support of the cowlick entry theory.

So in your theory, exactly how many people were coerced into giving statements or performing actions contrary to your beliefs?

And what evidence do you have of that?

Or are you back to just making stuff up as we go along?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Are you referring to the experts who weren't actually there examining Kennedy's body?

Although he can speak for himself, I'm pretty sure he means the forensic pathologists who reviewed the autopsy by examining the extant autopsy materials, rather than the three autopsists who numerous critics have long contended were either not qualified to perform a forensic autopsy or were part of the coverup.

Well, much earlier, I posted a list of experts who examined the x-rays and didn't identify any specific spot representing an entry wound.

You did? That's a surprise to me. Can you provide the link to your prior post identifying those forensic pathologists "who examined the x-rays and didn't identify any specific spot representing an entry wound"?

Or is your list of "experts" actually only a whole host of conspiracy theorists?

By default, this would make the cowlick fracture just a fracture.

No, just because you claim to have experts to the contrary, that doesn't change anything. We'll await your citations to these supposed experts.

So it's a complete falsehood to say that the cowlick fracture on the x-rays being an entry wound is a settled science.

Why you call it a cowlick fracture is beyond me. When you take JFK's head and orient it in an upright position instead of having him looking down as we can see he was doing in the Zapruder film, the rear wound is just above the level of the top of the ear and like the throat wound, travels anatomically upward (That doesn't mean the shooter was in the limousine's trunk or in a storm drain).

And any system where you have a "panel" of experts trying to determine something is bound to have people going along to get along.

So that applies to your experts as well, doesn't it? I mean these guys:

Well, much earlier, I posted a list of experts who examined the x-rays and didn't identify any specific spot representing an entry wound.

And we know that the HSCA took some dirty shortcuts, such as Dr. Humes being coerced into testifying in support of the cowlick entry theory.

Covered this in a prior post.

 

[bknight]

Are you referring to the experts who weren't actually there examining Kennedy's body?

Well, much earlier, I posted a list of experts who examined the x-rays and didn't identify any specific spot representing an entry wound. By default, this would make the cowlick fracture just a fracture. So it's a complete falsehood to say that the cowlick fracture on the x-rays being an entry wound is a settled science.

And any system where you have a "panel" of experts trying to determine something is bound to have people going along to get along. And we know that the HSCA took some dirty shortcuts, such as Dr. Humes being coerced into testifying in support of the cowlick entry theory.

The three doctors who performed the autopsy weren't qualified pathologists so observations made by them should be taken with great care.
There have been experts that have studied the images of the autopsy and have identified entry from the rear exiting the front.
Further testing of replicate dummies have shown that the entry from the rear with bone, tissue exiting the right frontal of the skeleton will have the effect of moving the head to the left as depicted by the Zapruder shows. the conclusion is that a lone gunman shot the President from the rear. You are speculating issues that a reasonable person would discount. Now prove your assertions.

 

[MicahJava]

Although he can speak for himself, I'm pretty sure he means the forensic pathologists who reviewed the autopsy by examining the extant autopsy materials, rather than the three autopsists who numerous critics have long contended were either not qualified to perform a forensic autopsy or were part of the coverup.

What? The autopsy pathologists did examine and review the extant autopsy materials by 1969 and afterward. Ebersole was the radiologist at the autopsy and he didn't think the cowlick fracture was an entry wound.

It is true that Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, and Dr. Burkley were not experienced in gunshot wounds, however Dr. Finck undeniably was. Finck just happened to arrive after the brain had been removed. He verified the autopsy materials like the face sheet, etc.

You did? That's a surprise to me. Can you provide the link to your prior post identifying those forensic pathologists "who examined the x-rays and didn't identify any specific spot representing an entry wound"?

Or is your list of "experts" actually only a whole host of conspiracy theorists?

No, just because you claim to have experts to the contrary, that doesn't change anything. We'll await your citations to these supposed experts.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11754576#post11754576

 

[MicahJava]

The three doctors who performed the autopsy weren't qualified pathologists so observations made by them should be taken with great care.
There have been experts that have studied the images of the autopsy and have identified entry from the rear exiting the front.
Further testing of replicate dummies have shown that the entry from the rear with bone, tissue exiting the right frontal of the skeleton will have the effect of moving the head to the left as depicted by the Zapruder shows. the conclusion is that a lone gunman shot the President from the rear. You are speculating issues that a reasonable person would discount. Now prove your assertions.

Common misconception. There's been pages here discussing the statements of Dr. Pierre Finck, the forensic pathologist who participated in hundreds of gunshot wound autopsies? Finck may have not done any of the actual surgery, but when he arrived he supervised and verified everything Humes and Boswell were doing.

 

[bknight]

Common misconception. There's been pages here discussing the statements of Dr. Pierre Finck, the forensic pathologist who participated in hundreds of gunshot wound autopsies? Finck may have not done any of the actual surgery, but when he arrived he supervised and verified everything Humes and Boswell were doing.

The following year he was appointed Chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the institute.

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKfinck.htm

How could he supervise something that was already accomplished? Verification that nothing was done improperly.

 

[MicahJava]

The following year he was appointed Chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the institute.

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKfinck.htm

How could he supervise something that was already accomplished? Verification that nothing was done improperly.

What? He was there for the autopsy, just not the part where they removed the brain.

 

[No Other]

Oswalds prints were lifted using powder from a Rolling Reader box directly under the snipers nest window. 3 of those boxes were used to form the snipers nest and were 40 or 50 feet away from the stack they came from. Oswald's prints lifted with powder had to be fresh (ie. left within day) as prints will not last long on cardboard before it absorbs perspiration.

Is that proof enough? If it isn't, nothing ever would be.

I am surprised that there were not more prints than 3; LHO had access to the entire building, his prints are expected to be on the merchandise that he handled. His prints on the boxes mean nothing.

 

[No Other]

In regards to (b), I had to point out that the rifle Oswald ordered was four inches shorter than the one he was actually shipped.

Here's the rifle Oswald ordered (36 inches long, according to the advertisement): https://sites.google.com/site/jfkwords/carcano

But that one was being phased out by Kleins and they shipped him a longer, 40-inch weapon they then had in stock.

You claim LHO received a 40" weapon, where is your proof that Klein shipped the 40" model to LHO?

 

[Tomtomkent]

You claim LHO received a 40" weapon, where is your proof that Klein shipped the 40" model to LHO?

Other than the physical existence of the rifle, complete with serial numbers and photographic evidence of it being in Oswald's possession?

 

[HSienzant]

What? The autopsy pathologists did examine and review the extant autopsy materials by 1969 and afterward. Ebersole was the radiologist at the autopsy and he didn't think the cowlick fracture was an entry wound.

When did he say this? You always make assertions, but mostly fail to document them. You appear to understand -- finally! -- that recollections from 15 or 33 years after the fact don't move the needle for us, so you're avoiding pointing out when these claims were made. You need to specify and cite a source, so we can determine for ourselves how much weight to put on your assertions.

It is true that Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, and Dr. Burkley were not experienced in gunshot wounds, however Dr. Finck undeniably was. Finck just happened to arrive after the brain had been removed. He verified the autopsy materials like the face sheet, etc.

Dr. Burkley was not part of the autopsy team. There were three pathologists performing the autopsy. Burkley was there merely as an observer.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11754576#post11754576

That sources back to simply a list of names. Another assertion without evidence. I'm looking for documentation for your claim. Can you provide the documentation for this assertion you make?

I asked: Can you provide the link to your prior post identifying those forensic pathologists "who examined the x-rays and didn't identify any specific spot representing an entry wound"?


And when I posted the below question to your assertion the first time you posted it, you dropped the subject like a hot potato:

How many of the above are qualified forensic pathologists?

Let's see you tell us why you're citing the people you're citing, and where you're actually getting your info.

 

[No Other]

These assertions of yours are based on what evidence? .

Klein ran ads through September 1963.

 

[No Other]

It was the mob that actually carried out the attempts, not the CIA, as I understand it. What's your point, that the mob wasn't really trying to kill Castro, or that they were lousy at assassinations?

False dichotomy and you may want to read some history books on the CIA and Castro. You call yourself some sort knowledgeable person and you don't think the CIA carried out plots to kill Castro? The little credibility you ever had went out with that comment.

 

[HSienzant]

You claim LHO received a 40" weapon, where is your proof that Klein shipped the 40" model to LHO?

Asked and answered right here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11824307&postcount=3284

Pretend you didn't see it some more.

Note that this deals only with the shipping end of the issue - the business records from Klein's shows the rifle bearing the serial number C2766 (the 40" rifle now in the archives that was found in the Depository) was shipped to Oswald's PO box.

There is also plenty of evidence on the other side of the equation that he received that weapon.
(a) The backyard photos show that weapon
(b) His palmprint was on that weapon
(c) His fingerprints were on the trigger guard
(d) His wife affirmed the blanket in the Paine garage held his rifle
(e) The rifle was found at his place of work

I addressed some of these issues in depth earlier in this thread. You simply ignored all the points I made.

For example, here I pointed out the number of people known to have access to both the Paine garage and the Depository - those who the evidence indicates could have taken the rifle from the Paine garage and transported it to the Depository. I invited you to add to the list:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11817670&postcount=3250

Your response can be best summed up by this youtube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re72di5phM0

Hank

 

[No Other]

Other than the physical existence of the rifle, complete with serial numbers and photographic evidence of it being in Oswald's possession?

The physical existence of an object does not mean that the object was shipped to him by Klein's. I will repeat, where is your evidence that Klein's shipped to LHO the 40" rifle.

What catalogue number did Klein's associate with that serial number?

Photographic evidence? You mean those pictures of LHO holding the rifle and newspapers in his hand? How do you match up the Klein rifle with that picture?