Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
HSienzant said:
According to some anonymous layman (e.g, unqualified) internet poster who posts here as "MicahJava". But to my knowledge, this MicahJava person has never quoted any qualified person who has said that.
Click to expand...

Don't get scared of big words like "skull" and "brain". The area of skull around the large defect was very brittle and fractured so easily that the doctors had to do "virtually do work with a saw" to remove the pieces of bone. The depressed cowlick fracture was right beside the lower parietal area of the large defect, of course it would have to be separated in the process of removing the brain.

This is also a simple matter of volume. How much wiggle room do you think an unfixed brain has? You remove a human brain, you need to create a big enough opening on the top of the head. It definitely couldn't happen while also keeping the HSCA beveled exit location intact.


How many decades after the fact did Finck make that claim? And why should we rely on on Finck's recollection to overturn the conclusions reached on the night of the autopsy when Finck, Humes, and Boswell had the body in front of them?

Isn't this yet another example of you claiming to agree with the autopsy, but meanwhile attempting to pick holes in it?

Hank
Click to expand...

Decades? Try fourteen months.

From Dr. Finck's 1/25/1965-2/1/1965 reports of Kennedy's autopsy to Gen. Blumberg:

"I examined the wounds. The scalp of the back of the head showed a small laceration, 15 X 6 mm. Corresponding to this lesion, I found a through-and-through wound of the occipital bone, with a crater visible from the inside of the cranial cavity. This bone wound showed no crater when viewed from outside the skull. On the basis of this pattern of the occipital bone perforation, I stated that the wound in the back of the head was an entrance."

"THE WOUNDS

The scalp of the vertex is lacerated. There is an open comminuted fracture of the cranial vault, many portions of which are missing.

The autopsy had been in progress for thirty minutes when I arrived. Cdr Humes told me that he only had to prolong the lacerations of the scalp before removing the brain. No sawing of the skull was necessary.

The opening of the large head wound, in the right fronto-parieto-occipital region, is 130 millimeters ( mm ) in diameter.

I also noticed another scalp wound, possibly of entrance, in the right occipital region, lacerated and transversal, 15 x 6 mm.. Corresponding to that wound, the skull shows a portion of a crater, the beveling of which is obvious on the internal aspect of the bone; on that basis, I told the prosectors and Admiral Galloway that this occipital wound is a wound, of ENTRANCE."

Why do I even try?
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
What panel was Finck on? When shown the X-rays, he said that he would rather refer to a professional radiologist to identify the entry wound on the X-rays.
Click to expand...

My bad, your stupidity confuses me, got him mix up with someone else you constantly misquote.

Fink signed off on the autopsy, and that ends any argument, plus he was late to the autopsy.


The devoid cowlick area on the X-rays didn't ring a bell for him, and the red spot on the photographs didn't either.
Click to expand...

So? He was late.

And can you stop referring to your theory, the theory in question, as "the autopsy"? Nobody who was there at autopsy agrees with it.
Click to expand...

Nobody but the experts who laid hands on the body, and a bunch of other experts you choose to ignore.

It's not my theory, the autopsy is just one piece in a larger puzzle pointing to Oswald's guilt.


If you think the X-rays and photographs support your theory, argue that without being disingenuous. Nobody's falling for that dumb trick.
Click to expand...

It's not a dumb trick, it's basic logic.

Example: I am not allowed to enter the reactor rooms aboard any US Aircraft Carrier or Submarine, that means I cannot see those reactors for myself, and that means I have to take the Navy's word that the reactors are in there. Not alien technology, not giant hamsters, nuclear reactors.

Therefore, if you have not seen ALL of the x-rays and photographs from the autopsy then you cannot discuss what they show, and when 96% of the pathologists tell you that two bullets killed Kennedy, both from behind, then that should be enough for an intellectually honest person.


In 1996, the ARRB hired three experts: forensic anthropologist Dr. Douglas Ubelaker, forensic pathologist Dr. Robert H. Kirschner, and forensic radiologist Dr. John J. Fitzpatrick. Neither of them could identify any clear entry wound apparent on the X-rays.
Click to expand...

Neat. Did they determine his head exploded on it's own? Or did they just say the x-rays were inconclusive based on the amount of time they were given with them?

Your point?
Click to expand...

How about you address Hanks many points instead.:thumbsup:
 
MicahJava said:
I also noticed another scalp wound, possibly of entrance, in the right occipital region, lacerated and transversal, 15 x 6 mm.. Corresponding to that wound, the skull shows a portion of a crater, the beveling of which is obvious on the internal aspect of the bone; on that basis, I told the prosectors and Admiral Galloway that this occipital wound is a wound, of ENTRANCE"
Click to expand...

And how would one accurately describe what you call "the cowlick wound", the one that appears next to a ruler in photographs to be of around 15 x 6mm, on the right hand side of the upper region of the occipital bone?
 
Tomtomkent said:
And how would one accurately describe what you call "the cowlick wound", the one that appears next to a ruler in photographs to be of around 15 x 6mm, on the right hand side of the upper region of the occipital bone?
Click to expand...

It's not 15x6mm and it's not within the occipital bone. Since the scalp is being moved in the BOH photos, the red spot appears to be within the upper occipital region, but the depressed cowlick fracture on the X-rays is within the parietal bone. You are claiming that the doctors used a specific landmark in the occipital bone to describe a defect in the parietal bone.
 
MicahJava said:
It's not 15x6mm and it's not within the occipital bone. Since the scalp is being moved in the BOH photos, the red spot appears to be within the upper occipital region, but the depressed cowlick fracture on the X-rays is within the parietal bone. You are claiming that the doctors used a specific landmark in the occipital bone to describe a defect in the parietal bone.
Click to expand...

I am not referencing any such landmark. I am stating that the description would be a reasonable one to direct somebody to that "red splotch" with a degree of accuracy. "Occipital region" and a reasonable estimate of size, that matches both the autopsy findings, and the WC, and disagrees with your handwaving dismissals.
 
Hank, surely you would know that Stringer's statements are some of the best evidence for missing autopsy photographs. And he specifically denied that the red spot was the entry wound he remembered.
 
MicahJava said:
Hank, surely you would know that Stringer's statements are some of the best evidence for missing autopsy photographs. And he specifically denied that the red spot was the entry wound he remembered.
Click to expand...

Why would we worry about what somebody remembered, when we can see the wound in the photographs?

You can call it a splotch, you are wrong, it won't convince anybody...
 
Tomtomkent said:
Why would we worry about what somebody remembered, when we can see the wound in the photographs?

You can call it a splotch, you are wrong, it won't convince anybody...
Click to expand...

Boswell told the HSCA and the ARRB that the red spot was a laceration related to the large head wound.
 
MicahJava said:
Boswell told the HSCA and the ARRB that the red spot was a laceration related to the large head wound.
Click to expand...

And what did those bodies conclude?
You offer no evidence for an alternative entry wound.
The wound you are trying to dismiss is the best resolution for the brain damage YOU keep complaining won't fit your unidentified wound.
 
MicahJava said:
Hank, surely you would know that Stringer's statements are some of the best evidence for missing autopsy photographs. And he specifically denied that the red spot was the entry wound he remembered.
Click to expand...

What were the autopsy conclusions which you've said you agree with? Why do you keep scurrying away from answerng?
 
Tomtomkent said:
You can call it a splotch, you are wrong, it won't convince anybody...
Click to expand...

MJ can call it whatever he pleases after staring endlessly at some umpteenth-generation photograph and convincing himself, inexpertly, about cowlicks and EOPs. The fact remains that the experts embodied their conclusions in an autopsy report that has been confirmed by numerous other experts over the years--the late-breaking recollections of some individuals notwithstanding.

And no matter where MJ thinks he discerns autopsy-contradicting splotches of color, the autopsy-supported fact remains that only one smallish hole was found towards the posterior of the skull, with beveling on the inner table, and one large wound in the right temporal-parietal area, with evidence of beveling on the outer table. Therefore, the physical evidence, reliably analyzed by experts, trumps amateur stargazing for splotches.

And lest we now get a breathless lecture from MJ about the questionable science of beveling (even though many more pathologists and forensic anthropologists accept it than question it), bear in mind that the beveling alone does not prove a single bullet wound to JFK's head, but rather the beveling is part of a persuasive cluster, or consilience, of evidence showing a single head-shot.

Consilience may play a local role in a subject (here, the autopsy) as well as a comprehensive role (the whole assassination).
 
Last edited:
OKBob said:
MJ can call it whatever he pleases after staring endlessly at some umpteenth-generation photograph and convincing himself, inexpertly, about cowlicks and EOPs. The fact remains that the experts embodied their conclusions in an autopsy report that has been confirmed by numerous other experts over the years--the late-breaking recollections of some individuals notwithstanding.

And no matter where MJ thinks he discerns autopsy-contradicting splotches of color, the autopsy-supported fact remains that only one smallish hole was found towards the posterior of the skull, with beveling on the inner table, and one large wound in the right temporal-parietal area, with evidence of beveling on the outer table. Therefore, the physical evidence, reliably analyzed by experts, trumps amateur stargazing for splotches.

And lest we now get a breathless lecture from MJ about the questionable science of beveling (even though many more pathologists and forensic anthropologists accept it than question it), bear in mind that the beveling alone does not prove a single bullet wound to JFK's head, but rather the beveling is part of a persuasive cluster, or consilience, of evidence showing a single head-shot.

Consilience may play a local role in a subject (here, the autopsy) as well as a comprehensive role (the whole assassination).
Click to expand...

He has admitted to searching for a conspiracy to embrace in his early posts, even dabbling in 9/11 nonsense before giving up. JFK is the grand daddy of CT with 50 years of endless CT books written about it covering every possible angle. JFK is a gateway CT. :D
 
Axxman300 said:
You proudly proclaimed you burned your copy of the Warren Commission, so you aren't interested in evidence.:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

If the Warren Commission had copies, then we would really have a conspiracy. Are you referring to the Warren Commission report? Because I've quoted from the volumes several times in these threads.
 
MicahJava said:
If the Warren Commission had copies, then we would really have a conspiracy. Are you referring to the Warren Commission report? Because I've quoted from the volumes several times in these threads.
Click to expand...

Why don't you cite the one CT site you got your opinions from?
 
MicahJava said:
Blah blah blah! no facts or evidence from OKBob, only spin and BS
Click to expand...

Please keep your responses civil. And once again: I don't have any burden to produce "evidence" to disprove your speculations. You have the burden to prove whatever you're scraping off the Internet at the moment.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom