Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[RoboTimbo]

In my experience with CTists (some of it directly from having once been one), the only conclusion they would accept is no conclusion at all; as Jayutah says, to prolong the discussion, not resolve the question it's about, is the real aim. It's why they hang like grim death to the (discredited) audio evidence presented to the HSCA in 1978- even though the ultimate conclusion then was still that LHO fired all the shots that killed JFK and wounded Connally, the (unjustified) possibility of another shooter is the fog they're looking for, never mind that it doesn't go anywhere and that there is no other evidence to support that scenario. It's also why they shy away from the concept of consilience- they have no intention of trying to live up to a standard of reasonable expectations from available evidence they know they can't meet (all the while demanding the "official story" live up to a standard of impossible perfection).

Yes, I was hoping that MicahJava would at least be able to admit it to himself. I already knew he couldn't answer the question about what result he would accept just as he can't answer the question about what his theory is. You've hit both nails squarely on the head. The point of CTists is to keep the conversation going to give themselves the semblance of relevance and never take a positive stand on anything that can be held to the same standard they want to hold the conventional narrative to.

The worst thing in the world for them would be closure. Look how MicahJava is clinging to his "cowlick red spot" but won't say how it impacts the consilience of evidence.

MicahJava, you've been asked several times but have consistently scurried away from answering: What would be the impact on the consilience of evidence if the entry wound was... wherever you think it was. How does that change the fact that Oswald's rifle fired the three shots from the 6th floor of the TSBD?

 

[MicahJava]

Straw man. Nobody here (or at the autopsy, even) ever said it was removed through a five-inch hole.

Do you remember what WAS said? Can you summarize it, or better yet, quote it, and try to rebut the actual words of Finck and Humes? Or do those words not count because those words are now on a different page and we have to start all over?

Do CTs do a great imitation of Dustin Hoffman in that movie he made with Tom Cruise, or what?

Hank

They said that the area around the large defect had commuted fractures that caused pieces of skull to separate just by moving the scalp around, and that those areas just crumbled in their hands very easily, such that virtually no cutting of the bone was necessary.

And do you think the cowlick fracture right beside the large defect was just impervious to this?

 

[HSienzant]

They said that the area around the large defect had commuted [sic] fractures that caused pieces of skull to separate just by moving the scalp around, and that those areas just crumbled in their hands very easily, such that virtually no cutting of the bone was necessary.

Yes, and they also said they did WHAT before removing the brain? Do you remember what I quoted?

You didn't forget already, did you?

Tell us what they said they did, and tell us why you are constantly referencing a straw man five-inch defect.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Yes, and they also said they did WHAT before removing the brain? Do you remember what I quoted?

You didn't forget already, did you?

Tell us what they said they did, and tell us why you are constantly referencing a straw man five-inch defect.

Hank

They reflected the scalp, i.e. to peel it back.

 

[HSienzant]

They reflected the scalp, i.e. to peel it back.

Now put those two pieces of info together, where's this five inch hole?

1. The skull has lost all integrity as it's in more than a dozen pieces of different shapes and sizes. The skull is literally held together by clinging to the remaining scalp.
2. Cuts are made down each side of the head and the scalp (and skull clinging to the scalp) peeled back.

This enlarges the opening, doesn't it?

Is the hole to remove the brain still only five inches?

Hank

 

[bknight]

...

Is the hole to remove the brain still only five inches?

Hank

Poof!

 

[MicahJava]

Now put those two pieces of info together, where's this five inch hole?

1. The skull has lost all integrity as it's in more than a dozen pieces of different shapes and sizes. The skull is literally held together by clinging to the remaining scalp.
2. Cuts are made down each side of the head and the scalp (and skull clinging to the scalp) peeled back.

This enlarges the opening, doesn't it?

Is the hole to remove the brain still only five inches?

Hank

Five inches is a reference to the official HSCA interpretation of the skull photographs, showing both the cowlick entry and the frontal exit.

If you do any of the things described above, the cowlick area of the skull would not be a part of the intact, empty cranium. Besides the skull flap(s) part of the original defect, the doctors made no particular reference to skull fragments sticking to the scalp following reflection, and in fact I think one of them said that the scalp was unusually loose, but it doesn't matter much either way.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Five inches is a reference to the official HSCA interpretation of the skull photographs, showing both the cowlick entry and the frontal exit.

If you do any of the things described above, the cowlick area of the skull would not be a part of the intact, empty cranium. Besides the skull flap(s) part of the original defect, the doctors made no particular reference to skull fragments sticking to the scalp following reflection, and in fact I think one of them said that the scalp was unusually loose, but it doesn't matter much either way.

If on the other hand you reflected the scalp enlarging the exit wound, as described, would it still be five inches? Not the cowlick, but the exit wound they talk about enlarging....

 

[OKBob]

I probably couldn't properly remove a brain, but this is a simpler issue that involves common sense.

The old "common sense" fallacy, applied, as often in CT, to complex, technical issues that require years of specialized training.

 

[HSienzant]

Five inches is a reference to the official HSCA interpretation of the skull photographs, showing both the cowlick entry and the frontal exit.

Not my question. Answer my question. If you start with a five inch hole and enlarge the hole, do you still have a five inch hole? Or is it larger?

If you do any of the things described above,

The doctors at the autopsy said they did that, right? There is no 'if' necessary here, is there?

...the cowlick area of the skull would not be a part of the intact, empty cranium.

Really? Says who? YOU?

Besides the skull flap(s) part of the original defect, the doctors made no particular reference to skull fragments sticking to the scalp following reflection,

You can see a piece of skull adhering to the scalp in the extant autopsy photos (above and in front of the right ear). This flap is visible even on the Zapruder film for goodness sakes. It remained adhering to the scalp for the next nine hours at least. Why would you think peeling back the scalp would cause all the skull bone fragments to drop to the autopsy table? Peeling back the flap near the right ear didn't cause that fragment to fall off.

And the autopsy report (which you claim to be familiar with and believe) says "Upon reflecting the scalp, multiple complete fracture lines are seen to radiate from both the large defect at the vertex and the smaller wound at the occiput." -- clearly these are fractures in the skull bone that are still adhering to the overlying scalp. No other interpretation makes sense.

...and in fact I think one of them said that the scalp was unusually loose,

In the context of the skull being extensively fragmented.

...but it doesn't matter much either way.

HILARIOUS!

So your last one hundred pages of argument about the cowlick wound and the five-inch hole was just a meaningless exercise?

Hank

 

[OKBob]

And do you think the cowlick fracture right beside the large defect was just impervious to this?

Without our assistance, you've put your finger, right here, on one of the chief weaknesses of your argument. You are assuming that the entrance wound was included within the friable pieces of skull that broke away. That is your unsupported inference. It is not an established fact or even, at this point, a credible inference. Are you claiming that it is?

 

[HSienzant]

Medical Definition of comminuted
: being a fracture in which the bone is splintered or crushed into numerous pieces -- a comminuted elbow fracture

https://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/comminuted

 

[turingtest]

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.

To get back to this question- if I were actually "a concerned citizen," as opposed to just your garden-variety "CTist as a hobby," what I would do is to take my concerns to people who could give you a legitimate answer from expertise and experience. Surely you know a doctor or other relevant medical professional you could raise this question with? Or maybe a local university with a medical department? Instead of just spinning your CT wheels here, why not run it by someone who can actually answer the question and allay your concern with an informed conclusion? Isn't this worth the effort? Or is the spinning the whole point?

 

[Axxman300]

And no, nothing about the removal of the brain from the perspective of the cowlick entry theory has been "clarified" from any of you.

Answering questions comes with the real estate.

 

[Axxman300]

Five inches is a reference to the official HSCA interpretation of the skull photographs, showing both the cowlick entry and the frontal exit.

If you do any of the things described above, the cowlick area of the skull would not be a part of the intact, empty cranium. Besides the skull flap(s) part of the original defect, the doctors made no particular reference to skull fragments sticking to the scalp following reflection, and in fact I think one of them said that the scalp was unusually loose, but it doesn't matter much either way.

Yes they did, in a least two of the interviews we've link to here.

For a guy searching for the truth you don't seem to be looking very hard.

 

[OKBob]

[Snip] if I were actually "a concerned citizen," as opposed to just your garden-variety "CTist as a hobby," [snip]

This is an interesting question, as turingtest suggests, and it goes to the heart of CT hobbyism. They claim to want to do their duty as citizens, but they don't take any steps that would mainstream their concerns and make them viable. For example, MJ will almost certainly not submit his theories to a local cranial surgeon or a medical examiner, or to a local medical school faculty. When CTs disseminate their ideas, it's either on self-created websites or in online discussions, or at CT-dedicated conferences, or with small, outlier presses that will accept monographs lacking critical thinking and scholarly argumentation, because, where the presses are not simply vanity outfits, they know they can sell a profitable number of copies to woo readerships. I'd be very surprised if most CT publications went through a full peer review, or if the peer reviewers were credentialed historians or other scholars, as opposed to other CTs. The whole style and quality of CT argumentation ensures that the effort will remain a marginalized hobby.

 

[MicahJava]

Without our assistance, you've put your finger, right here, on one of the chief weaknesses of your argument. You are assuming that the entrance wound was included within the friable pieces of skull that broke away. That is your unsupported inference. It is not an established fact or even, at this point, a credible inference. Are you claiming that it is?

See how the cowlick fracture on the X-ray is right beside the large head defect?

We know that the area around the large skull defect was so brittle it easily came apart. So please tell me how the cowlick mark even survived the reflection of the scalp, let alone the enlarging of the skull cavity to facilitate removal of the brain, LET ALONE the process of actually getting the brain through.

 

[MicahJava]

If on the other hand you reflected the scalp enlarging the exit wound, as described, would it still be five inches? Not the cowlick, but the exit wound they talk about enlarging....

Yes, it would be bigger than five inches. Can't preserve the hypothetical cowlick entry hole in the intact skull, though.

 

[MicahJava]

To get back to this question- if I were actually "a concerned citizen," as opposed to just your garden-variety "CTist as a hobby," what I would do is to take my concerns to people who could give you a legitimate answer from expertise and experience. Surely you know a doctor or other relevant medical professional you could raise this question with? Or maybe a local university with a medical department? Instead of just spinning your CT wheels here, why not run it by someone who can actually answer the question and allay your concern with an informed conclusion? Isn't this worth the effort? Or is the spinning the whole point?

Wouldn't I have to pay for that? If not, that would be an interesting exercise. I'd want to talk one-on-one with somebody, because my point must be hard to explain, since a lot of people here seem to not get it.

 

[MicahJava]

On the "pieces of bone stuck to the scalp" thing:

It doesn't matter either way, this is a red herring and does not detract from the brain removal problem besides maybe proposing an explanation for a frontal view of the skull photographs. Dr. Finck always said he could view the entry hole in the intact, empty skull. Finck never indicated that he could only see it when other previously separated skull fragments were pieced together, nor did he say anything similar about pieces of fractured skull stuck to the scalp.

However, we do have witness evidence from Boswell to the ARRB in 1996 that he saw something like this, at least in the process of taking some of the photographs.

Q. With respect to the photographs, was anything done to the skull or to the hair to prepare it for the photographs? For example, was the hair cleaned at all? Was the hair parted in any way or any skull fragments put in before the photographs were taken?

A. Well, photographs were taken at various stages. The scalp was pulled forward in order to demonstrate the wound of entrance. And then the scalp was reflected to show the magnitude of the wound and more or less the direction of the bullet, and then to remove the brain.

Q. Just so I'm clear--and we'll be looking at the photographs in a few minutes, and you can maybe clarify it there. But at least with some of the photographs, is it your testimony that the scalp was pulled in a way different from how it was when you first saw it in order to better illustrate either wound of entry or exit?

A. Yes. The scalp was essentially loose. In the usual autopsy, you have to cut underneath the scalp in order to reflect it. In this case, the scalp was mobile so that you could pull it forward to obscure the wound or pull it back to make the wound completely lucid.

Q. Okay. Was the hair cleaned in any way for purposes of the photographs?

A. No, I don't think so. There was not a lot of blood, as I remember, and I think he had been pretty well cleaned up in the operating--in the emergency room. And I don't think we had to do much in the way of cleansing before we took photographs.

...

A. There was a big wound sort of transverse up like this from left posterior to right anterior. The scalp was separated, but it was folded over, and you could fold the scalp over and almost hide the wound. When you lifted the scalp up, you could really lay it back posteriorally, and there was a lot of bone still attached to the scalp but detached from the remainder of the skull. And I think these parts back here probably reflect that.

http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Boswell_2-26-96.pdf