MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
My CT is mostly just sticking to the original EOP location for the small head wound (identified as an entry).
Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting
- Thread starter bknight
- Start date
- Status
My CT is mostly just sticking to the original EOP location for the small head wound (identified as an entry).
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Didn't your one CT website tell you how to answer?
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
It is clear exactly what Lipsey is talking about if you pay close attention. There's nothing "all over the place" about it.
Face sheet marked by Lipsey:
Explain clearly--clearly, please--how what you claim to be a "beveled spot . . . within the intact skull" contradicts, modifies, supplements, or confirms Dr. Finck's findings as to an exit wound evidenced by outer-table beveling on the fragments he examined?
Have you read that testimony in its entirety, or were you the one not paying attention? Any CT hobbyist who relies on Lipsey's testimony for anything but a few laughs is seriously off course.
And another problem with your mode of presentation, typical of autodidact buffs: you think you can win an argument by simply presenting a single diagram signed by Lipsey without building a solid argument around what you think that diagram means, how it relates to his testimony, and how it relates to the consilience of testimony and other evidence.
And didn't you just say in an another discussion that memories after 15 years were unreliable?
Last edited:
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
Did Finck ever say he saw a beveled exit in the frontal bone of the intact skull? That would be a lot different than if he said he saw one on skull fragments made available to him some time later in the autopsy.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Axxman300
Philosopher
To recap:
MJ has only seen the handful of low resolution photos taken as the B-roll during the autopsy, and not the 52+ 35mm photos taken at every step of the examination. That's because only a small number of experts have had access to these photos and x-rays held in the National Archive, and while most of them agree with the original finding there are three or four who do not. That's par for the course in medicine.
This is a link to the National Archives pdf of the Autopsy report:
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf
And again I will quote the National Archives from their JFK Assassination Files FAQ:
The issue is that CTists are running fast and loose with only a couple of pictures that are not conclusive of anything other than showing the President was, in fact, dead.
MJ has only seen the handful of low resolution photos taken as the B-roll during the autopsy, and not the 52+ 35mm photos taken at every step of the examination. That's because only a small number of experts have had access to these photos and x-rays held in the National Archive, and while most of them agree with the original finding there are three or four who do not. That's par for the course in medicine.
This is a link to the National Archives pdf of the Autopsy report:
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf
And again I will quote the National Archives from their JFK Assassination Files FAQ:
The issue is that CTists are running fast and loose with only a couple of pictures that are not conclusive of anything other than showing the President was, in fact, dead.
Is this your idea of explaining clearly, MJ? Posing a question where I asked you to provide an answer? I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I'm afraid you're leaving me with two alternatives. Either you're incapable of the kind of rigor that it takes to deal with a large set of data, or you really don't care about persuading your critics. Contrary to what you might think, we're willing to be persuaded here. You're just not doing it.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
I don't know what you mean by "the original finding". At least a dozen qualified experts have viewed the original X-rays and either disagree with the cowlick theory or couldn't identify any particular entry. Dr. John Ebersole, Dr. Fred Hodges, Dr. Robert McMeekin, Dr. Alfred Olivier, Dr. Norman Chase, Dr. G.M. McDonnel, Dr. David O. Davis, Dr. Douglas Ubelaker, Dr. John J. Fitzpatrick, Dr. Robert Kirschner, Dr. David Mantik, and Dr. Peter Cummings. That puts it at about half and half.
And we've already gone over the interpretations of the photographs, i.e. the red spot. Nobody who was there agrees with that being an entry wound.
Axxman300
Philosopher
The picture is not clear enough to make any assessment.
We know where the bullet struck, we know what kind of bullet it was, we know where the bullet was fired from, we know who fired the weapon.
We know JFK was struck only once in the head, and once in the back.
The only doctors who matter are the three original pathologists.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
How does that fit in with your overall theory that fits a consilience of evidence? Don't you have any ideas of your own?
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
It's the pieces of established evidence that have to go away for the pin-the-headwound (I won't call it yours anymore, it's just co-opted CTist crap) game to have validity.
Silly. It's the laser burn. I already explained it, nobody disagrees with me and you can't prove any of it wrong.
Axxman300
Philosopher
HSienzant
Philosopher
This site, aarclibrary.org - a conspiracy source you've cited from in the past - contains this article, which says the below about Dr. Olivier.
http://aarclibrary.org/trafficking-in-half-truths/ (By DB Thomas)
Regarding the President’s head wound, a ballistic expert consulted by the Warren Commission, Dr. Alfred Olivier, of the U.S. Army’s Weapons Testing Branch, did agree that the ballistic evidence was consistent with the official “Oswald did-it” version. But Dr. Olivier was not allowed to examine the actual evidence. He had to rely on the official autopsy report that the President had a “through-and-through” bullet hole in the occipital bone of his skull.² All subsequent expert panels that have been given access to the autopsy photographs and x-rays, have agreed that there was no “through-and-through” bullet-hole in the President’s occipital bone, or anywhere else in his skull for that matter.
You say Olivier examined the original autopsy materials. The above article says Olivier never saw the original materials.
Can you explain this discrepancy?
Which is it?
Which of you is 'trafficking in half-truths'? You, the conspiracy theorist posting here, or the conspiracy theorist quoted article writer above?
Hank
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
Not my question. Answer my question. Who is right, you or DB Thomas? Again, the question is: "You say Olivier examined the original autopsy materials. The above article [by DB Thomas] says Olivier never saw the original materials... Which of you is 'trafficking in half-truths'? ... You, the conspiracy theorist posting here, or the conspiracy theorist quoted article writer above?"
It appears you are claiming DB Thomas was wrong to say Olivier never saw the x-rays. This from a web source you've utilized and cited in the past.
Olivier's claims to the Rockefeller Commission are delineated here:
https://history-matters.com/archive/church/rockcomm/html/Rockefeller_0137b.htm
They concerned the movement of the head backward. Olivier's expertise is in ballistics and bullet wounds, not in interpreting x-rays. He testified to the Rockefeller commission because of his expertise in ballistics.
Where does he say that he "... either disagree[d] with the cowlick theory or couldn't identify any particular entry"?
Hank
Last edited:
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
Olivier never confirmed or denied any particular entry wound. On the Zapruder film, he testified:
"If you intend to derive from the way the tissue is flying the direction of the bullet impact, you could get some errors, because when that bullet entered the head the nose of the bullet erupted on the skull and expended a tremendous amount of energy. This caused what is known as a temporary cavity. Apparently, this cavity was nearer the side of the head so that it buried in that area, and say, took the path of least resistance. If the bullet path had been near the top of the head it could have burst through the top. So while the motion of pieces of skull and brains like that are in the direction in which the cavity opened, they do not necessarily indicate a vullet flying in that same direction."
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=31992#relPageId=19&tab=page
Olivier's words are vague, but is the hypothetical cowlick entry not on the top of the head?
This is not a reference to the X-rays, it was my bad if I said he qualified as an expert in X-rays or if he ever specifically talked about them. But one must also ask how many more of the experts on the Clark Panel, Rockefeller panel, and HSCA are not qualified to discuss the nuances of Kennedy's X-rays even though they may have been presented as qualified to do so.
Dr. Pierre Finck was a forensic pathologist, but when asked by the HSCA if he could identify an entry wound on the X-rays, he declined to comment and referred the issue to a forensic radiologist specifically. I think a newer, better batch of experts should assess the X-rays.
"If you intend to derive from the way the tissue is flying the direction of the bullet impact, you could get some errors, because when that bullet entered the head the nose of the bullet erupted on the skull and expended a tremendous amount of energy. This caused what is known as a temporary cavity. Apparently, this cavity was nearer the side of the head so that it buried in that area, and say, took the path of least resistance. If the bullet path had been near the top of the head it could have burst through the top. So while the motion of pieces of skull and brains like that are in the direction in which the cavity opened, they do not necessarily indicate a vullet flying in that same direction."
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=31992#relPageId=19&tab=page
Olivier's words are vague, but is the hypothetical cowlick entry not on the top of the head?
This is not a reference to the X-rays, it was my bad if I said he qualified as an expert in X-rays or if he ever specifically talked about them. But one must also ask how many more of the experts on the Clark Panel, Rockefeller panel, and HSCA are not qualified to discuss the nuances of Kennedy's X-rays even though they may have been presented as qualified to do so.
Dr. Pierre Finck was a forensic pathologist, but when asked by the HSCA if he could identify an entry wound on the X-rays, he declined to comment and referred the issue to a forensic radiologist specifically. I think a newer, better batch of experts should assess the X-rays.
Last edited:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
What result would all of the CTists accept?
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
- Status