Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[MicahJava]

You know, a forensic pathologist is technically just somebody who can find the cause of death at autopsy. There should be a credibility check across the board, because I would like to see a group of only forensic radiologists examine the X-rays. Kennedy's X-rays were taken on low-quality portable equipment at the wrong angle necessary. I think it was Ebersole who said they only took X-rays to locate fragments. You can barely see anything on the original versions, and the enhanced versions were done with 70's technology. So I think it would only take somebody who specializes in gunshot wound X-rays to get to the bottom of what they show, especially without preconceived notions of what a certain red spot on the photographs show.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You know, a forensic pathologist is technically just somebody who can find the cause of death at autopsy. There should be a credibility check across the board, because I would like to see a group of only forensic radiologists examine the X-rays. Kennedy's X-rays were taken on low-quality portable equipment at the wrong angle necessary. I think it was Ebersole who said they only took X-rays to locate fragments. You can barely see anything on the original versions, and the enhanced versions were done with 70's technology. So I think it would only take somebody who specializes in gunshot wound X-rays to get to the bottom of what they show, especially without preconceived notions of what a certain red spot on the photographs show.

So when you claim to know that the autopsy results show a gunshot entry wound in a specific location, you admit that you have neither the information nor the expertise to make that deliberation? In that case, what the **** have you been on about for the last ninety-seven pages?

Dave

 

[MicahJava]

So when you claim to know that the autopsy results show a gunshot entry wound in a specific location, you admit that you have neither the information nor the expertise to make that deliberation? In that case, what the **** have you been on about for the last ninety-seven pages?

Dave

You don't need expertise to read the measurement in the autopsy report, 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the EOP, or the face sheet, or the statements of the doctors who stood by and clarified their measurement, or the six additional witnesses who support a low wound. And you only need a basic understanding of volume to see how you can't remove the brain without first separating the area of the skull containing the hypothetical upper placement of the wound, even though Dr. Finck always said the crater was still intact in the empty cranium, which indicates a lower wound. The reported fragments in the neck on the X-rays help too.

 

[Axxman300]

You know, a forensic pathologist is technically just somebody who can find the cause of death at autopsy.

Yes, 10 extra years of med school to get that title.

There should be a credibility check across the board, because I would like to see a group of only forensic radiologists examine the X-rays.

The HSCA group had at least one radiologist when they went to the National Archives.

Kennedy's X-rays were taken on low-quality portable equipment at the wrong angle necessary.

Typical CT drek. Standard accusations made by people who have never seen those x-rays.

I think it was Ebersole who said they only took X-rays to locate fragments.

Humes said, in that interview you never read, that they x-rayed the body from head to toe in the name of being thorough. The head was x-rayed from all possible angles.

You can barely see anything on the original versions

You've never seen them, and you are trusting poisoned sources.

 

[RoboTimbo]

You don't need expertise to read the measurement in the autopsy report, 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the EOP, or the face sheet, or the statements of the doctors who stood by and clarified their measurement, or the six additional witnesses who support a low wound. And you only need a basic understanding of volume to see how you can't remove the brain without first separating the area of the skull containing the hypothetical upper placement of the wound, even though Dr. Finck always said the crater was still intact in the empty cranium, which indicates a lower wound. The reported fragments in the neck on the X-rays help too.

What conclusion would CTists accept if there were a review of the autopsy materials? CTists often make calls for a "new investigation" of their favorite CT. What conclusion would you accept?

 

[BStrong]

You don't need expertise to read the measurement in the autopsy report, 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the EOP, or the face sheet, or the statements of the doctors who stood by and clarified their measurement, or the six additional witnesses who support a low wound. And you only need a basic understanding of volume to see how you can't remove the brain without first separating the area of the skull containing the hypothetical upper placement of the wound, even though Dr. Finck always said the crater was still intact in the empty cranium, which indicates a lower wound. The reported fragments in the neck on the X-rays help too.

An understanding and acknowledgement of the human trait of fallibility could go a long way here.

 

[MicahJava]

An understanding and acknowledgement of the human trait of fallibility could go a long way here.

Do you not believe Finck when he says he examined the entry wound in the empty cranium?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Do you not believe Finck when he says he examined the entry wound in the empty cranium?

Don't you know what results you'd accept for another review of the autopsy?

 

[HSienzant]

Most interesting post in the thread. Someone drew underpants on the sketch of the body.

Boxers or briefs? JFK wore both!

Hank

 

[OKBob]

Do you not believe Finck when he says he examined the entry wound in the empty cranium?

Let's cut the cackle. Here's your argument in a nutshell: (1) Pierre Finck arrived late to the autopsy. (2) By the time he arrived, JFK's brain had been removed. (3) The brain could not have been removed without removing the cowlick portion of the skull where the entrance wound was officially located. (4) But Dr. Finck located an entrance wound in the intact skull. (5) Ergo, the entrance wound must have been lower than its official location.

I don't buy it. Why? Because you beg the question at step (3) and falsely claim the ability to infer that the procedures used to remove the brain must have affected the cowlick portion of the skull. You are only speculating here, and you don't have the medical expertise to get beyond speculation. No go.

Your argument is structurally similar to that of Robert Harris, a previous tenant here. Here's what he argued: (1) People exhibit recognizable startle reactions in response to loud noises. (2) The occupants of JFK's limo move in a manner that can only be a startle reaction around Zapruder frame 285. (3) A loud noise--that is, a gunshot--must have occurred at or around that frame. (4) Since the official account already establishes three other shots at different times, this fourth shot proves a conspiracy.

I don't buy it. Why? Harris never demonstrated the qualifications or expertise to identify the startle reactions described at step (1), and he begged the question at step (2) because his conclusion there was a mere visual inference on his part, not a "fact," as he insisted. No go.

 

[MicahJava]

What more do I, as a concerned citizen, have to do to show that I have a legitamite point that goes beyond a pet theory? It's so easy a child could understand it. There's not very many ways you can remove a human brain from the cranium.

 

[OKBob]

What more do I, as a concerned citizen, have to do to show that I have a legitamite point that goes beyond a pet theory?

Why don't you try by responding to my summary of your position (all of it)? Stop preening. Stop issuing telegrams instead of arguments. Stop trying to seize the moral high ground with the "concerned citizen" stuff (an old CT trick). Just respond clearly and honestly to our questions and comments.

 

[MicahJava]

What do you mean I'm not qualified to know how to remove a brain? Is it not a simple matter to know when a hole is too small to fit a brain through? And, of course, since the cowlick fracture on the X-ray is right beside the large defect, the commuted fractures would've just made that area naturally chip off. Not what Finck attested to at all! He could see the entry hole unmolested in the empty cranium.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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

What do you mean I'm not qualified to know how to remove a brain? Is it not a simple matter to know when a hole is too small to fit a brain through? And, of course, since the cowlick fracture on the X-ray is right beside the large defect, the commuted fractures would've just made that area naturally chip off. Not what Finck attested to at all! He could see the entry hole unmolested in the empty cranium.

Ok, that's another good example. Thank you for continuing to supply them. Do you have more?

 

[Axxman300]

What more do I, as a concerned citizen, have to do to show that I have a legitamite point that goes beyond a pet theory? It's so easy a child could understand it. There's not very many ways you can remove a human brain from the cranium.

Because you ignore a mountain of counter testimony.

Because you cherry-pick statements often without understanding what they mean.

Because you refuse to acknowledge human nature in any form, the idea that nobody's perfect, the idea that professionals often disagree, that people misremember things, and that many people will say anything to get their name in the papers/on TV/in a book.

Because you assume a cover-up without solid evidence.

Because you don't read anything that runs counter to CT. Example: The brain's removal has been clarified in a couple of links posted at least twice, yet you continue to be baffled,and this means that you either didn't read it, or that you didn't grasp the information.

 

[Axxman300]

What do you mean I'm not qualified to know how to remove a brain? Is it not a simple matter to know when a hole is too small to fit a brain through? And, of course, since the cowlick fracture on the X-ray is right beside the large defect, the commuted fractures would've just made that area naturally chip off. Not what Finck attested to at all! He could see the entry hole unmolested in the empty cranium.

All of this based on a single photo.

Questions:

What happened before the picture was taken?

Did they slide the scalp back into position before they took that picture?

Was the skull fractured bad enough to allow Humes to just pull it out?

Was it taken right after the brain was removed, or after the head had been mostly restored prior to be released to the family?

You must answer these questions.

 

[BStrong]

Do you not believe Finck when he says he examined the entry wound in the empty cranium?

I believe that human beings **** up in all manner of things across the board, and if given a choice between magic, grand conspiracy and human fallibility I'll take the latter if the rest of the evidence fits together - which in this case, it does.

From another post -

Yes, you are unqualified to judge evidence of any type, because your confirmation bias and lack of experience take precedence over your possible credibility.

 

[abaddon]

You really can't get very far with the autopsy films available to the public. There must be an investigation that looks at the full (available) collection.

Why? You seem quite willing to leap to all manner of unwarranted conclusions on that very basis, and insist your are right. Now, you are stating that it isn't possible to do so despite the fact that you do so.

 

[Dave Rogers]

What more do I, as a concerned citizen, have to do to show that I have a legitamite point that goes beyond a pet theory?

You have to actually have a legitimate point that goes beyond a pet theory.

Dave

PS: Though a pet theory would be nice; you don't seem to have one of those either.

 

[abaddon]

What do you mean I'm not qualified to know how to remove a brain? Is it not a simple matter to know when a hole is too small to fit a brain through? And, of course, since the cowlick fracture on the X-ray is right beside the large defect, the commuted fractures would've just made that area naturally chip off. Not what Finck attested to at all! He could see the entry hole unmolested in the empty cranium.

Didn't seem to trouble the Egyptians.