Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[HSienzant]

"That doesn't mean what you think it means"

-Finck

You once quoted what Finck said. You appear to be hesitant to repeat that quote, now that you understand what it means.

I didn't ask what Finck said, I said what Finck said Humes said, when Finck joined the autopsy in Bethesda.

Finck said Humes said:

"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."

That means the normal procedure of removing the top half of an intact skull to examine the brain didn't have to be performed, because the top right half of the skull was already missing from the bullet injury suffered in Dealey Plaza and the skull had lost its normal integrity because of the damage caused by the passage of the bullet through the head.



Humes testified to this:
To better examine the situation with regard to the skull, at this time, Boswell and I extended the lacerations of the scalp which were at the margins of this wound, down in the direction of both of the President's ears. At that point, we had even a better appreciation of the extensive damage which had been done to the skull by this injury.
We had to do virtually no work with a saw to remove these portions of the skull, they came apart in our hands very easily, and we attempted to further examine the brain, and seek specifically this fragment which was the one we felt to be of a size which would permit us to recover it.

That concurs with what Finck said Humes said, and explains that two cuts, one down each side of the head, was all that was necessary to excise the brain since the skull itself had lost all integrity due to the damage from the bullet passage.

That's also why we see the hand holding the back half of the head (what you call 'stretching the scalp') in place for the photographs. There's a complete loss of integrity of the underlying skull bone.



And Finck also 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.

That localizes the entry wound to what you consistently call "the red spot". And puts the entry wound in the skull right underneath that red spot.

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

I've presented my arguments, and a lot if not most people would consider them proof.

Can you give some more examples of you using your opinion as evidence?

 

[HSienzant]

Hank, the doctors did not just widen the scalp opening and stick their hands in, with pieces of skull stuck to the scalp, and somehow pull the entire brain out like that.

Straw man argument. I didn't say they pulled the brain out. I quoted the doctors saying they made cuts down both sides and excised the brain from the body that way... they said no cuts to the skull were necessary as the skull was damaged extensively and lost all integrity.

Now you're like taking little out-of-context bits to try and say something that probably isn't even physically possible.

These statements that for the most part YOU PROVIDED are the earliest statements of Finck and Humes, are they not? What is out of context? Show where, in those earliest statements, they said something that changes the context (note that recollections from 15 or 33 years after the fact are specifically excluded from my request. Do you understand why I excluded those yet?)

You have to reflect (peel back) the scalp before you start working on the skull

And that's what the doctors said they did. Two cuts - one down each side - was sufficient to reflect the scalp and most of the skull, because the damage was so extensive. Normally in an autopsy, you are dealing with an intact skull. Not so in this case. The normal rules of removing the top half of the skull by sawing it off wasn't necessary, because of the extensive damage suffered by JFK due to the bullet that entered the back of his head.

and that's exactly what the doctors did.

They told you exactly what was necessary, and that was what they did.

With the nature of the gunshot wound, and the incentive to preserve Kennedy's face, they may have peeled it back a little differently, maybe in a different direction like in the occipital interpretation of the skull photographs, but the basic idea behind the procedure was still in place. The autopsy doctors and participants made that clear.

They didn't have to saw off the top of the skull, so they didn't. They didn't have to do more than extend the lacerations down to the ears, so they didn't. That's why Finck saw the bullet entry wound in the skull. And why he said it corresponded to the wound on the outer portion of the scalp (that you call 'the red spot').

I don't feel like quoting every single recorded oral history that makes that obvious.

The earliest statements of the doctors are clear in what they did. No need to search their recollections from 15 or 33 years after the fact to find contradictions in their statements. Faulty recollection is a known factor in human memory.

The skull photographs show the scalp reflected back to expose the skull cavity (this photo was taken after the brain had already been removed), whether it be over his eyes like the official HSCA interpretation, or reflected to the left to expose the occiput like in other interpretations.

No disagreement there. But the two cuts in the scalp above the ears are likewise sufficient to reflect the scalp back and expose the massive wound in the right top portion of the skull, aren't they?

Your argument for the past month (that Humes had to do sawing and thereby remove the entry wound from the skull that Finck said he saw on the skull) is exposed as nonsense. You simply failed to understand the plain language the doctors used to explain what they did until it was explained to you.

Hank

 

[bknight]

Another note on the official skull photographs: According to two experts, they may show a portion of the torso skin, probably already separated from the autopsy's Y-incision, and even a nipple.

This would be the upper left corner of this view:

NSFW - autopsy photo

[qimg]http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/BE7_HI.JPG[/qimg]

Has there been any description, not by a CT's of what the black area that resembles a "T" or "Y" in this image?
MJ I noticed you quoted almost verbatim from your CT web site the description of the image.
...

(Lower left corner in this rotation):

NSFW - autopsy photo

[qimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/lg54d81a9d.png[/qimg]

This image doesn't show on my lap.

 

[MicahJava]

Hank, this is just another roundabout red herring thing with whether or not there was sawing of the skull. It doesn't matter whether or not there was sawing. The doctors made their incisions in the scalp and reflected it. Then, the damaged cranium was exposed and the area around the large defect could be separated with ease. The doctors are basically saying that, after the scalp was incised, the rest of the job practically did itself. The end result of this is what the skull photographs show. You acknowledge that the skull photographs show the scalp reflected. That is how a brain removal procedure is done. It's done in layers.

Dr. Finck did not say that he could see the entry wound as a part of a fragment of skull bone, he said he could still see it in the intact, empty cranium. The area of the alleged cowlick entry would've been among the pieces of break off.

And if we go by some of those famous 15-year-old recollections, Boswell and Humes mentioned something that implies that they had to do a special scalp incision, besides the main one, to expose the entry wound low in the head.

Dr. PETTY. What is this opposite- oh, it must be, I can't read it- but up close to the tip of the ruler, there you are two centimeters down.

Dr. BOSWELL. It's the posterior-inferior margin of the lacerated scalp.

Dr. PETTY. That's the posterior-inferior margin of the lacerated scalp?

Dr. BOSWELL. It tore right down to that point. And then we just folded that back and this back and an interior flap forward and that exposed almost the entire- I guess we did have to dissect a little bit to get to-

Dr. HUMES. To get to this entrance, right?

Dr. BOSWELL. But not much, because this bone was all gone and actually the smaller fragment fit this piece down here- there was a hole here, only half of which was present in the bone that was intact. and this small piece then fit right on there and the beveling on those was on the interior surface.

http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md20.pdf

The posterior interpretation of the skull photographs, with the scalp reflected to the left, definitely cannot be ruled out.

 

[MicahJava]

Has there been any description, not by a CT's of what the black area that resembles a "T" or "Y" in this image?
MJ I noticed you quoted almost verbatim from your CT web site the description of the image.
...

What "T"/"Y"? What about that obvious number "3" clearly indicating a movie studio prop

The description from the CT site is written by David Mantik, who had access to the full collection of official autopsy photographs at the National Archives. The skull photographs there are in color and of higher quality. Mantik also used a stereoscopic viewer.

This image doesn't show on my lap.

Try this: https://i1.wp.com/mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.jpg

 

[MicahJava]

My question is pending, MJ: Please explain how your speculation regarding a tangential bullet wound to the right temporal-parietal portion of JFK's skull overcomes Dr. Finck's observation that the outer table of the blasted fragments of that wound showed beveling, leading him to conclude that the large wound was an exit wound resulting from a perforating (not a tangential) missile.

The funny part is, the official interpretation of the skull photographs are supposed to override Dr. Finck's observations. Dr. Finck never said there was a small beveled exit in the frontal area, and he said he didn't recognize it when showed those pictures. In any interpretation I can remember, that beveled half-hole in the skull photographs can not fit anything Finck ever testified to.

Autopsy witness Richard Lipsey recalled the doctors discussing the large head wound as a tangential wound, and the small head wound as being an entrance which exited the throat.

Any way you look at it, you must be skeptical that Finck said everything he knew. But I trust him on the location of the small head wound because there's just so much corroborating evidence.

 

[bknight]

What "T"/"Y"? What about that obvious number "3" clearly indicating a movie studio prop

Well I don't see a 3, but if what your describing is a very black area, in the center/upper right center of the image, that I described as a "T" or "Y". The quotation marks because the area only resembles the letters, but could resemble many normal aspects of life.

The description from the CT site is written by David Mantik, who had access to the full collection of official autopsy photographs at the National Archives. The skull photographs there are in color and of higher quality. Mantik also used a stereoscopic viewer.




Try this: https://i1.wp.com/mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.jpg

OK, then it is the same image viewed from a different line of site. You forgot to mention, but I will, Mantik is a full blown CT concerning the assassination event. I believe he even purports that the X-ray images are all fakes, correct?

 

[MicahJava]

Well I don't see a 3, but if what your describing is a very black area, in the center/upper right center of the image, that I described as a "T" or "Y". The quotation marks because the area only resembles the letters, but could resemble many normal aspects of life.

The "Y" is a small mark or defect on the inner surface of the reflected scalp.

OK, then it is the same image viewed from a different line of site. You forgot to mention, but I will, Mantik is a full blown CT concerning the assassination event. I believe he even purports that the X-ray images are all fakes, correct?

Dr. Kirschner also said that area could be torso skin reflected from the autopsy's chest incision. Only Mantik specifically said he could see a nipple. I do not think Mantik ever said that the skull photographs have been manipulated.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Can you give some more examples of you using your opinion as evidence?

It doesn't matter whether or not there was sawing.

Yep, that's an obvious one.

The doctors are basically saying that, after the scalp was incised, the rest of the job practically did itself. The end result of this is what the skull photographs show. You acknowledge that the skull photographs show the scalp reflected. That is how a brain removal procedure is done. It's done in layers.

Yep, that's another one, unless you can post your credentials showing your expertise in performing autopsies.

Dr. Finck did not say that he could see the entry wound as a part of a fragment of skull bone, he said he could still see it in the intact, empty cranium. The area of the alleged cowlick entry would've been among the pieces of break off.

Says who, other than the one CT website you get your opinions from. Thank you for that example of your interpretations.

And if we go by some of those famous 15-year-old recollections, Boswell and Humes mentioned something that implies that they had to do a special scalp incision, besides the main one, to expose the entry wound low in the head.

Why not go by the contemporaneous autopsy results which you've already said you agree with? But thanks for another example as you were told to give.

The posterior interpretation of the skull photographs, with the scalp reflected to the left, definitely cannot be ruled out.

You're doing well providing so many examples of you giving your uninformed opinion. How many was that in just this one post?

 

[RoboTimbo]

The funny part is, the official interpretation of the skull photographs are supposed to override Dr. Finck's observations. Dr. Finck never said there was a small beveled exit in the frontal area, and he said he didn't recognize it when showed those pictures. In any interpretation I can remember, that beveled half-hole in the skull photographs can not fit anything Finck ever testified to.

Autopsy witness Richard Lipsey recalled the doctors discussing the large head wound as a tangential wound, and the small head wound as being an entrance which exited the throat.

Any way you look at it, you must be skeptical that Finck said everything he knew. But I trust him on the location of the small head wound because there's just so much corroborating evidence.

How do you interpret this then? Who made the impossible shot that we see in the Z film? From where? With what rifle?

 

[bknight]

The "Y" is a small mark or defect on the inner surface of the reflected scalp.

I was asking a non-CT's interpretation, however, I don't think small would be a correct adjective as by eye-balling the image it is about 1/3 the height and 1/4 the width, although some of this may be shadows caused by the flash.

Dr. Kirschner also said that area could be torso skin reflected from the autopsy's chest incision. Only Mantik specifically said he could see a nipple. I do not think Mantik ever said that the skull photographs have been manipulated.

No I remembered correctly

http://assassinationofjfk.net/tag/david-mantik/

He indicates the images are fakes. I wonder why few if any doctors that have studied the case have agreed with him?

 

[beachnut]

... Dr. Kirschner also said ...

How do conspiracy theorists and liars about JFK find the best evidence? Hearsay and speculation, only the best for wild claims.

9/11, JFK, Bigfoot CTs share the same evidence : the empty set

 

[MicahJava]

How do conspiracy theorists and liars about JFK find the best evidence? Hearsay and speculation, only the best for wild claims.

9/11, JFK, Bigfoot CTs share the same evidence : the empty set

Last I checked, Dr. Kirschner was a totally random forensic pathologist hired by the ARRB to examine the existent autopsy films.

 

[beachnut]

Last I checked, Dr. Kirschner was a totally random forensic pathologist hired by the ARRB to examine the existent autopsy films.

:: random hearsay?, or random speculation?

I find your CT (a CT you can't detail) on JFK is based on hearsay, opinion and speculation. Only the best for CT belief. Like 9/11 BS posted by you, now using BS to support a JFK CT you can't explain in detail. Don't worry, you can find more BS to support the faith based belief, the Internet is a great source for BS on JFK, you can gish gallop this for hundreds of years.

 

[OKBob]

Dr. Finck never said there was a small beveled exit in the frontal area, and he said he didn't recognize it when showed those pictures. In any interpretation I can remember, that beveled half-hole in the skull photographs can not fit anything Finck ever testified to.

How can we discuss these matters with you if we can't rely on you to represent the record accurately? You claim that Dr. Finck "never" testified to outer-table beveling on the recovered fragments? Are you joking? To wit:

Dr. Finck's testimony before the WC: "We will see portions of bone in this general area, the large wound in the bone on the right side of the skull of President Kennedy. I had enough curvature to identify outside of the skull, and inside of the skull, as the first step to orient the specimen, and then I could determine the location of the beveling, and I could therefore say that B, Commission Exhibit 388, is a wound of exit."

His testimony at the Shaw trial: "During the course of the autopsy we received from Dallas portions of bone which have the same appearance as the general appearance of the remaining skull of President Kennedy, and on one of the fragments which we could match inside this wound, approximately five inches in diameter, occupying the right side and the top of the head of the President, I saw the beveling [on the outer table, as he indicates] I described to you."

From his HSCA testimony: "From what I remember in the fragments of bone I established first what is the outer surface of the skull and what is the inner surface of the skull in those fragments and after doing that you [look] at both surfaces and you determine where is the beveling. The beveling was in the outer surface, thus identifying a portion of a wound of exit if that is your question."

Is this just a game for you, MJ? Or are you really having trouble understanding the clear testimony?

 

[OKBob]

Autopsy witness Richard Lipsey recalled the doctors discussing the large head wound as a tangential wound, and the small head wound as being an entrance which exited the throat.

Do you mean Lipsey who also stated this in his HSCA testimony?: "Medical definitions of what type of wounds they were, and whatever, I tuned all that out probably. I didn't know what they were talking about and I just didn't care."

Lipsey's testimony is all over the place. He's very confused, and he admits it. CTs typically have very loose standards about what constitutes credible testimony, but your citing of Lipsey takes the cake.

 

[Meadmaker]

I've been watching various videos of coverage of great historical events. I figured there would be videos of the coverage of the Kennedy assassination. Here's five hours of CBS news coverage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaUo9KNQw3c

It's fascinating stuff. There was so much misinformation broadcast.

They reported a couple had been arrested at the top of the grassy knoll. They reported the discovery of the "Mauser". They reported the arrest of a man at the Texas Schoolbook Repository. I've listened to about two hours. So far no mention of Lee Oswald or J. D. Tippit, or any mention of the murder of a police officer. The report of the arrest might have been Oswald at the theater, but they haven't mentioned it yet.

I've read an awful lot about the assassination, but there are new details, although in many cases, they're just wrong.

They reported a Secret Service agent killed.

They got an awful lot wrong as fragmentary and inaccurate reports came in.

Or.....maybe they just weren't prepped very well, and they went off script? Hmmm?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Last I checked, Dr. Kirschner was a totally random forensic pathologist hired by the ARRB to examine the existent autopsy films.

Run, Micah, run! You've been asked questions, answer them.

 

[MicahJava]

How can we discuss these matters with you if we can't rely on you to represent the record accurately? You claim that Dr. Finck "never" testified to outer-table beveling on the recovered fragments? Are you joking? To wit:

Dr. Finck's testimony before the WC: "We will see portions of bone in this general area, the large wound in the bone on the right side of the skull of President Kennedy. I had enough curvature to identify outside of the skull, and inside of the skull, as the first step to orient the specimen, and then I could determine the location of the beveling, and I could therefore say that B, Commission Exhibit 388, is a wound of exit."

His testimony at the Shaw trial: "During the course of the autopsy we received from Dallas portions of bone which have the same appearance as the general appearance of the remaining skull of President Kennedy, and on one of the fragments which we could match inside this wound, approximately five inches in diameter, occupying the right side and the top of the head of the President, I saw the beveling [on the outer table, as he indicates] I described to you."

From his HSCA testimony: "From what I remember in the fragments of bone I established first what is the outer surface of the skull and what is the inner surface of the skull in those fragments and after doing that you [look] at both surfaces and you determine where is the beveling. The beveling was in the outer surface, thus identifying a portion of a wound of exit if that is your question."

Is this just a game for you, MJ? Or are you really having trouble understanding the clear testimony?

I was referring to the specific area on the skull photographs identified as a beveled exit. Notice how Finck refers to a beveled exit on skull fragments that were initially separated but were later brought to the attention of the autopsy doctors. The beveled spot on the skull photographs is within the intact skull, albeit half of the circular spot is missing as part of the large skull cavity.