• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dr. Hume discusses the removal of the brain starting on page #102:

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=788#relPageId=103&tab=page

He says he cut the bone right above the ear, but the skull was so badly shattered that they could just move the fragmented sections to get the brain out.

The - doctored* - photo you use is after they've put the skull back together.

First, it took me ten minutes to find this, and about 20 minutes of reading the deposition to get the answer. Life is a big mystery when you loom for easy answers to hard questions.

*Your picture is from a CT site, and is sideways, and cropped. The only folks faking evidence are CTers. :thumbsup:
 
MicahJava said:
Are you going to sit here and try saying you can fit a brain through that hole?
Click to expand...

To recap:

Dr. Hume removed the brain by cutting just above the ear, and utilized the badly damaged skull to remove the brain.

"That hole" does not reflect the opening which the brain was removed from, but is a photo taken later with the skin being pulled together to recreate the original wound without the brain present.

There are at least 49 autopsy photographs in the archives and more than 14 x-rays. We have seen 3 X-rays, and maybe 8 photographs.

There is not enough visual information for anyone to dispute the autopsy in any way...at least not someone who is intellectually honest.:thumbsup:
 
Ok. This page no longer holds the silliest JFK CT I have encountered. I just stopped following a Doctor Who fan page after they mentioned the Mandela Effect, and contradictory JFK evidence as proof CERN cracked open the multiverse.
 
Axxman300 said:
Dr. Hume discusses the removal of the brain starting on page #102:

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=788#relPageId=103&tab=page

He says he cut the bone right above the ear, but the skull was so badly shattered that they could just move the fragmented sections to get the brain out.
Click to expand...

Um... Yeah? So the piece of skull with the depressed cowlick fracture came off too, right?

The - doctored* - photo you use is after they've put the skull back together.

First, it took me ten minutes to find this, and about 20 minutes of reading the deposition to get the answer. Life is a big mystery when you loom for easy answers to hard questions.

*Your picture is from a CT site, and is sideways, and cropped. The only folks faking evidence are CTers. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

To recap:

Dr. Hume removed the brain by cutting just above the ear, and utilized the badly damaged skull to remove the brain.

"That hole" does not reflect the opening which the brain was removed from, but is a photo taken later with the skin being pulled together to recreate the original wound without the brain present.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to the open-cranium photographs? What on earth do you mean "after they've out the skull back together"? Where do you situate that part the HSCA identified as a "beveled exit"? You do believe the skull photographs show frontal bone, right? Not occipital like I tend to think?

There are at least 49 autopsy photographs in the archives and more than 14 x-rays. We have seen 3 X-rays, and maybe 8 photographs.

There is not enough visual information for anyone to dispute the autopsy in any way...at least not someone who is intellectually honest.:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

They're mostly just near-duplicates of views we already have from the bootleg copies. I am the one defending the autopsy, by the way. You are referring to your interpretation of the BOH photos and X-ray, which nobody who was at the actual autopsy agrees with.
 
Last edited:
RoboTimbo said:
What is your comprehensive theory that matches a consilience of evidence?
Click to expand...

The small head wound was low in the head. The autopsy report says it was 2.5 centimeters and slightly above the EOP. When the doctors reflected the scalp, pieces of the skull from around the large head wound either naturally chipped off or were removed with some sawing. This enlarged the skull down to the occipital bone, enough to remove the brain. The small head wound was low enough in the head to remain intact for Dr. Finck to examine. The depressed cowlick fracture is just a fracture related to the large head wound. The red spot on the BOH photographs, if not a drop of blood, could either be a laceration related to the large head wound or an exit for a fragment. That's my comprehensive theory that matches a consilience of evidence.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
The small head wound was low in the head. The autopsy report says it was 2.5 centimeters and slightly above the EOP. When the doctors reflected the scalp, pieces of the skull from around the large head wound either naturally chipped off or were removed with some sawing. This enlarged the skull down to the occipital bone, enough to remove the brain. The small head wound was low enough in the head to remain intact for Dr. Finck to examine. The depressed cowlick fracture is just a fracture related to the large head wound. The red spot on the BOH photographs, if not a drop of blood, could either be a laceration related to the large head wound or an exit for a fragment. That's my comprehensive theory that matches a consilience of evidence.
Click to expand...

And?
 
MicahJava said:
That's my comprehensive theory that matches a consilience of evidence.
Click to expand...

You plainly don't know what consilience means. At least you haven't responded to Robo's request that you explain the importance of this brain-removal jag you're on and relate it to the known totality (the consilience) of the evidence in the assassination. To do that, you'd have to describe the relevant evidentiary totality as you see it and show how your brain discussion relates to that totality, in the process setting forth the affirmative claim that the newly revised consilience has led you to. You don't do any of that but simply leap from alleged anomaly to alleged anomaly. There are forums on which such Gish-galloping is acceptable, but expectations are higher here.
 
MicahJava said:
Um... Yeah? So the piece of skull with the depressed cowlick fracture came off too, right?
Click to expand...

Translation: I no click link thingie, I no read information from DOCTOR who was there.

No, they didn't touch that skull plate, they didn't need to.


Are you referring to the open-cranium photographs? What on earth do you mean "after they've out the skull back together"?
Click to expand...

You never played with jigsaw puzzles as a kid I'm guessing. Hume cut as much as he could from above the right ear, folded it out like a lunch box, and removed the brain. You can see the shattered skull on the few X-rays publicly available, it would have been like opening an artichoke.

Once the brain was out, the skull pieces are replaced.

In fact, after the photos were all taken the head was sewn shut. All of this is detailed in this deposition which you clearly haven't read.



They're mostly just near-duplicates of views we already have from the bootleg copies. I am the one defending the autopsy, by the way. You are referring to your interpretation of the BOH photos and X-ray, which nobody who was at the actual autopsy agrees with.
Click to expand...

Sorry, no.

Humes describes the process, and what, and how the autopsy was photographed. There were many pictures detailing all of the damage to the skull, and the brain.

Most important is that SINCE YOU HAVE NOT SEEN ALL OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS YOU CANNOT TELL ME WHAT THEY DETAIL. I can't tell you what they show either, but I'm not the one delusional about a second bullet to the head.

You have to look at all of the evidence, and you refuse to do so.
 
MicahJava said:
There are no answers from you. You never answered because you can't.
Click to expand...

Which part of my response did you fail to understand?

I can try to explain it to you in simpler language, but I can't understand it for you.

Regarding the brain, I already linked to Humes' language where he said little to no cutting had to be done to remove the brain because of the extensive damage to the skull caused by the bullet's passage through the head. Despite my linking to it numerous times, you continue to question how the brain could be removed from the skull.

And on the subject of the rifle: Quite simply, from what I cited, Klein's received an order for a rifle that was for a rifle they ran out of stock on, and Klein's was now shipping a slightly longer rifle also from Italy from the same manufacturer but a different model. They also updated the advertisement to reflect the new rifle model. Orders that arrived in the interim with the old advertisement were being shipped the new model because that's what Klein's now had in stock.

There's nothing mysterious there.

Klein's also wasn't in the habit of shipping product for free, and their business records indicate they got paid. By money order. So arguments starting with, "There's something funny about the money order and..." are non-starters because we know Klein's got paid by money order, and your arguments just reduce to nothing more than anomaly hunting once more.

The language you quoted concerning postal money orders says they should be stamped payable "to the order of any bank"' and the money order in question was stamped PAY TO THE ORDER OF THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO, which meets the requirement you quoted. It cites further requirements, but also says the money order will be accepted for payment without those other requirements being met, and the money order will be presumed to have them if submitted for payment.

Anything beyond that isn't necessary. Continuing to quibble means you simply don't understand the arguments made thus far, and your complaints are still meaningless anomaly hunting that goes nowhere, as Klein's affirmed they got paid by money order for the rifle bearing the serial number C2766.

Your failure to accept any of this does not reflect whatsoever on the state of the evidence. It reflects solely on your insatiable desire to find a conspiracy, and on your need to dismiss any evidence pointing to Oswald.

And the evidence points to Oswald (FYI - the money order you're questioning was determined to be in Oswald's handwriting, something you don't even try to explain).

Good luck explaining the consilience of the evidence pointing to Oswald.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
I am the one defending the autopsy, by the way.
Click to expand...

Asked and answered. The last time I pointed out the difference between the autopsy and your viewpoint (one shot to the head vs two) you said you meant something other than the official autopsy report.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11835431&postcount=3416

Repeating arguments you've already retreated from really doesn't help your credibility any, you know.

You are NOT defending JFK's autopsy.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Axxman300 said:
Translation: I no click link thingie, I no read information from DOCTOR who was there.

No, they didn't touch that skull plate, they didn't need to.


You never played with jigsaw puzzles as a kid I'm guessing. Hume cut as much as he could from above the right ear, folded it out like a lunch box, and removed the brain. You can see the shattered skull on the few X-rays publicly available, it would have been like opening an artichoke.

Once the brain was out, the skull pieces are replaced.

In fact, after the photos were all taken the head was sewn shut. All of this is detailed in this deposition which you clearly haven't read.
Click to expand...

Axxman, when you say the skull cavity was "like a lunchbox", do you mean something like this?:

jB8q7AR.png


Because that's still not enough room. Considering the consistency of a human brain, how much wiggle room do you think it could've had? How much to the left side to you think this cavity extended? Are you going to liken removing a human brain to fitting a furniture through a door? "Rotate the brain clockwise, Humes!", "Sure thing, Boswell!", "No, no, MY clockwise". Jeez, give Kennedy's brain room to breath. It can't squeeze through that small hole.

Please provide a citation for your claim that the autopsy doctors simply placed the skull fragments back together exactly how they were to photograph the skull, preferably by Dr. Finck. Humes once said that as soon as the exposed skull was touched, fragments began chipping off. Considering that the depressed cowlick fracture was right next to or within the perimeter of the original large head wound, it's pretty ridiculous what you suggest, let alone claim as fact, make yourself think the cowlick entry theory could be anywhere near consistent with Finck's timeline or the skull photographs.

Do you think that star-shaped mark on the open-cranium photographs is the depressed cowlick fracture?

The skull was eventually reconstructed with fragments and filler, leaving a hole in the occipital area with a piece of rubber to cover it.

Sorry, no.

Humes describes the process, and what, and how the autopsy was photographed. There were many pictures detailing all of the damage to the skull, and the brain.

Most important is that SINCE YOU HAVE NOT SEEN ALL OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS YOU CANNOT TELL ME WHAT THEY DETAIL. I can't tell you what they show either, but I'm not the one delusional about a second bullet to the head.

You have to look at all of the evidence, and you refuse to do so.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Humes said he remembered a close-up photograph being taken on the small head wound, but I guess that image is now missing. Just tell me where you're getting your information about what the additional photographs show, otherwise you're just making things up as you go along to make it sound like it supports the cowlick entry theory. The cowlick entry theory certainly never clicked with the people who actually did the autopsy, and they had full access to the photographs as of 1969.
 
Last edited:
Hank: It does not matter whether a saw was used or every skull fragment naturally chipped off. Either was, skull fragments were removed from the intact rest of the skull. Considering how badly fractured the areas surrounding the "original" void of skull was, the area of the skull with the depressed cowlick fracture had to be separated. Skull fragments had to be separated from the intact rest of the skull to create a cavity big enough to remove the brain.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Or, for that matter, comprehensive.

Dave
Click to expand...

Dave, at the very least, if the cowlick entry theory is a hoax, it shows that a good portion of our understanding of the JFK forensic evidence has been sabotaged. That's a pretty big deal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom