Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[HSienzant]

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

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/Smgdf1I.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/a3eGjJ7.jpg[/qimg]

No. The red circle on the x-ray is too low.

Beyond that, note how extensively fractured the cranial vault is. What do you suppose is holding all those separate piece in place in the x-ray you show above?

Did the doctors mention super-gluing it together? Or do you suppose the only thing holding all those extensive fragments in place is the overlying scalp?

 

[MicahJava]

"Intact Skull" is nonsense.

There was no intact skull. We established that by quoting Humes and Finck's earliest statements.

Remember providing this quote:



So according to Finck, there was an observable bullet wound on the back of the scalp that corresponded to the bullet wound in the skull bone that was attached to it. He noted the cranial vault had a comminuted fracture, and that the scalp was lacerated. Look up any words you don't understand.

Humes said essentially the same thing:
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.

There was no intact skull. That's simply a strawman argument of yours. I'm not arguing for an intact skull, and Finck and Humes didn't mention one either.

We have a skull extensively fractured, being held together largely if not solely by still being attached to the scalp.

So the back of the head wound was seen, on both the outside of the scalp, and the inside of the skull. And those pieces must have been still connected, because Finck says the two wounds were "corresponding" to each other.

Learn to accept the things you cannot change.

Hank

Cranial vault literally just means the inside of your skull where the brain is. "There is an open comminuted fracture of the cranial vault, many portions of which are missing" could literally mean anything, and it certainly doesn't mean what you think it means. The cranial vault literally just means the dome covering the brain.

And not only have you convinced yourself that Dr. Finck could only observe the entry crater in the skull held together by the scalp, which is indicated by precisely zero (0) of the witness statements from the autopsy doctors or any other autopsy witnesses. Your game is literally just quoting the plain English spoken by the doctors and distorting it in your imagination to fit a hypothesis which probably isn't physically possible. Even if it was possible, wouldn't it be more professional (in the sense that, it lessens the chance of post-mortem damage to the brain) to remove any loose skull fragments? The one time Boswell mentioned skull fragments sticking to the scalp, it was while discussing what was happening while the photographs were being taken. And what on earth do you mean "there was no intact skull"? No, clearly some of it was left intact in the back-base area and the frontal area.

Oh brother, why should I bother HELP you muddy the waters? What you're saying doesn't even make sense in one's imagination.

Some time soon I might compile every autopsy statement describing the procedure of removing the brain and the size of the empty cranium, but I'll save the effort to post it elsewhere, such a task isn't worth trying just for a post on this one thread.

 

[MicahJava]

Hank, when Boswell said "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.", I'm pretty sure he is referring to the loose flap of scalp or bone or both that appears to be obscuring the lower parietal part of the large head wound, held up by his hands. That flap is illustrated in this morphing gif of two BOH photos:

NSFW - autopsy photos

 

[MicahJava]

No. The red circle on the x-ray is too low.

Beyond that, note how extensively fractured the cranial vault is. What do you suppose is holding all those separate piece in place in the x-ray you show above?

Did the doctors mention super-gluing it together? Or do you suppose the only thing holding all those extensive fragments in place is the overlying scalp?

So what even if the scalp is the only thing holding all of that together? All the more reason to think that had to be separated to facilitate removal of the brain.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

Is it accurate to call Harris an "alumnus of ISF"? Seems to me he's really more of a "dropout."

 

[HSienzant]

Cranial vault literally just means the inside of your skull where the brain is. "There is an open comminuted fracture of the cranial vault, many portions of which are missing" could literally mean anything, and it certainly doesn't mean what you think it means. The cranial vault literally just means the dome covering the brain.

And not only have you convinced yourself that Dr. Finck could only observe the entry crater in the skull held together by the scalp, which is indicated by precisely zero (0) of the witness statements from the autopsy doctors or any other autopsy witnesses. Your game is literally just quoting the plain English spoken by the doctors and distorting it in your imagination to fit a hypothesis which probably isn't physically possible. Even if it was possible, wouldn't it be more professional (in the sense that, it lessens the chance of post-mortem damage to the brain) to remove any loose skull fragments? The one time Boswell mentioned skull fragments sticking to the scalp, it was while discussing what was happening while the photographs were being taken.

Oh brother, why bother to HELP you muddy the waters? What you're saying doesn't make sense.

Some time soon I might compile every autopsy statement describing the procedure of removing the brain and the size of the empty cranium, but I'll save the effort to post it elsewhere, such a task isn't worth trying just for a post on this one thread.

Handwaving f-f-frantically as he sinks beneath the waves, MicahJava tries claiming everything I said was either out of context (blub!) or an outright invention (blub! Blub!), but he never tries to show the context (because I already provided it) or show how it's a lie by quoting the doctors. In fact, in the recent past, every time he's quoted the doctors, it established the exact opposite of what he's arguing in favor of (BLUB! BLUB! BLUB!).

Such is life as a conspiracy theorist. Don't worry about me, MicahJava, I've been debating this case online for most of the past three decades (since the early 1990's). I know you have no evidence, the only issue here is getting you to understand it. I may next post a brief listing of the arguments you advanced here over the past year only to see them blow up in your face -- remember the torn half dollars you couldn't link to Oswald, claiming that was a spy technique, then how you destroyed your own argument by posting the image of a torn half-dollar two friends split among themselves to insure they would reunite? Some 'spy technique'.

You advanced (and destroyed) your argument here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11453187&postcount=1094

You also argued that the coverup extended to patching a piece of concrete in Dealey Plaza, not understanding that the word 'patch' in English has multiple meanings, including to simply designate an area different than the rest (as in, "this barren patch of earth"). So that argument reduced to you assuming what you needed to prove, that the 'patch' in question referenced in the study you cited was actually something applied over the spot where the bullet struck, rather than simply designating the spot WHERE the bullet struck.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11410366&postcount=907
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11413872#post11413872

You remember those arguments?

How about when you argued for a storm drain shooter, not understanding the geography of Dealey Plaza or the overpass sufficiently, nor how many people would have been able to see such a shooter popping out of a storm drain, firing one or more shots, then pulling the storm drain back over himself?
Remember that nonsense?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11411016&postcount=919
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11414427&postcount=1005

Well, that wasn't too hard. No need to go further and devote a entire separate post to your dead-end arguments.

Over and over, you honestly appear not to have a strong acquaintance with the English language, posting quotes that disprove your own contentions or misunderstanding simple words like 'patch' and how they are used in English.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Handwaving f-f-frantically as he sinks beneath the waves, MicahJava tries claiming everything I said was either out of context or an outright invention, but he never tries to show the context (because I already provided it) or show how it's a lie by quoting the doctors. In fact, in the recent past, every time he's quoted the doctors, it established the exact opposite of what he's arguing in favor of.

Nope, you're taking serious creative license with how you fill in the blanks on the doctors statements. I hope you'll realize that.

Such is life as a conspiracy theorist. Don't worry about me, MicahJava, I've been debating this case online for most of the past three decades (since the early 1990's). I know you have no evidence, the only issue here is getting you to understand it. I may next post a brief listing of the arguments you advanced here over the past year only to see them blow up in your face -- remember the torn half dollars you couldn't link to Oswald, claiming that was a spy technique, then how you destroyed your own argument by posting the image of a torn half-dollar two friends split among themselves to insure they would reunite? Some 'spy technique'.

You advanced (and destroyed) your argument here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11453187&postcount=1094

Okay, Oswald's wallet contained a half portion of a dollar bill with the number 300 written on it. Since you acknowledge that this item was for the exact purpose I was arguing, are you saying that Oswald intended to meet somebody with the other half of the dollar bill on the day of the assassination, or did he just arbitrarily leave that in his wallet with absolutely no connection to the assassination?

You also argued that the coverup extended to patching a piece of concrete in Dealey Plaza, not understanding that the word 'patch' in English has multiple meanings, including to simply designate an area different than the rest (as in, "this barren patch of earth"). So that argument reduced to you assuming what you needed to prove, that the 'patch' in question referenced in the study you cited was actually something applied over the spot where the bullet struck, rather than simply designating the spot WHERE the bullet struck.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11410366&postcount=907

You remember those arguments?

Do you remember not bothering to read the actual study of the curbstone commissioned by Weisberg that concluded that area of the curbstone probably was filled over with cement paste?


http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/C%20Disk/Cochran%20Johnnie/Item%2003.pdf

Could have an innocent explanation, but not like you're saying lol.

How about when you argued for a storm drain shooter, not understanding the geography of Dealey Plaza or the overpass sufficiently, nor how many people would have been able to see such a shooter popping out of a storm drain, firing one or more shots, then pulling the storm drain back over himself?
Remember that nonsense?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11411016&postcount=919

What? I've stood in that exact location. It's a perfect shot, the problem is the nearby witnesses. Obviously, more over time I've realized that the large head wound is not the key to understanding the shooting evidence, but rather the small one.

Over and over, you honestly appear not to have a strong acquaintance with the English language, posting quotes that disprove your own contentions or misunderstanding simple words like 'patch' and how they are used in English.

Hank

wowza

 

[HSienzant]

Hank, when Boswell said "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.", I'm pretty sure he is referring to the loose flap of scalp or bone or both that appears to be obscuring the lower parietal part of the large head wound, held up by his hands. That flap is illustrated in this morphing gif of two BOH photos:

NSFW - autopsy photos

[qimg]https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mt8ebUPjtAM/UYm45Enz7SI/AAAAAAAAuiY/52WQQlmaQaY/s1600/JFK-Autopsy-Photos-GIF.gif[/qimg]

We can read and make up our own minds. We don't need your uneducated layman's opinion of what Boswell meant ("I'm pretty sure..."), but thanks anyway.

In short, you're not quoting Boswell to support your opinion, you're giving us your opinion of Boswell's remarks to support your opinion.

That simply won't do. Your opinion isn't evidence, and can't be used to support your opinion, but that's all you have above.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

So what even if the scalp is the only thing holding all of that together? All the more reason to think that had to be separated to facilitate removal of the brain.

Which I had a hard time convincing you of over the past 20 pages or so. You were arguing the brain couldn't be removed through the existing defect as seen in the autopsy photos before any cutting was done. I had to drag you, kicking and screaming, to the realization that once some of the scalp was cut, there was sufficient room to remove the brain without any cutting of bone.

Now you're pretending you held that position all along... hilarious.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Is it accurate to call Harris an "alumnus of ISF"? Seems to me he's really more of a "dropout."

Good catch.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Nope, you're taking serious creative license with how you fill in the blanks on the doctors statements. I hope you'll realize that.

Actually, those words apply better to anything you've said than I did.

Okay, Oswald's wallet contained a half portion of a dollar bill with the number 300 written on it.

No, it did not. The documentation for Oswald's money at the time of his arrest says one bill was "torn", it does not say "torn in half".

You appear to have a selective memory for conspiracy "facts" that aren't facts. And for assuming what you need to prove.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11474726&postcount=1305

Since you acknowledge that this item was for the exact purpose I was arguing...

Huh? Straw man argument. I acknowledged that was your argument, but I also acknowledged "I may next post a brief listing of the arguments you advanced here over the past year only to see them blow up in your face -- remember the torn half dollars you couldn't link to Oswald, claiming that was a spy technique, then how you destroyed your own argument by posting the image of a torn half-dollar two friends split among themselves to insure they would reunite? Some 'spy technique'."

How you got from that acknowledgement of the issues with your argument to me acknowledging "that this item was for the exact purpose... [you] were arguing" is beyond me. Unless it's that English language issue surfacing (blub!) again.

... are you saying that Oswald intended to meet somebody with the other half of the dollar bill on the day of the assassination,

No, I'm saying none of that. Previously I said you didn't establish any of that, from the bill being torn in half, to its intended purpose, to the fact that he had in in his wallet when he left the Paine residence on 11/22/63 (I pointed out that he could have, for example, obtained a torn single as partial change for a five when purchasing a meal that morning from a food truck, for instance).

I saw this same nonsense from Robert Harris. He understood less and less of what I was saying as the evidence encircled him like vultures.

...or did he just arbitrarily leave that in his wallet with absolutely no connection to the assassination?

A slightly torn single? I doubt if there's much significance to that. But the ball's still in your court to establish it. It's not up to anyone here to disprove any of your novel hypotheses about the assassination - like the significance of a torn dollar bill in Oswald's possession after the assassination.

Do you remember not bothering to read the actual study of the curbstone commissioned by Weisberg that concluded that area of the curbstone probably was filled over with cement paste?


http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/C%20Disk/Cochran%20Johnnie/Item%2003.pdf

I remember reading it, and pointing out the original concrete curb (or 'kerb' for those from other side of the pond) includes three items, water, aggregate (sand or crushed stone), and Portland cement. The water and Portland cement form a cement paste that, when combined with the gravel, forms concrete and grows stronger over time.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11415068&postcount=1042

Now, establish that the 'patch' in question is a patch of new cement over the damage, instead of just a reference to the area where the damage is (that small patch of concrete on the surface with the lead smear).

Could have an innocent explanation, but not like you're saying lol.

Actually, it's exactly like I'm saying.

What? I've stood in that exact location. It's a perfect shot, the problem is the nearby witnesses.

The witnesess are a definite problem, exactly as I pointed out to you back when you first raised this issue, but the even bigger problem is you're shooting through bushes all the way from that corner of the overpass.

Draw a line from that corner to anywhere in the shooting zone (z160 to z313 in Zapruder frames. You either intersect the pedestal Zapruder was standing on (meaning you can't see JFK at all from that location) or you're intersecting the bushes planted along the grassy knoll fence.

I'll submit only one of us has stood in that storm drain, moved a board and looked through and determined whether there was a shot to be had. You have no shot from there.

By the way, do you know who came up with this theory? A conspiracy theorist named Jack Brazil. I spoke with him and got a personal tour of his theory in the early 1990s (neither of us crawled all the way into the sewer).

Obviously, more over time I've realized that the large head wound is not the key to understanding the shooting evidence, but rather the small one.

Keep believing that. I'll keep pointing out why and how you're wrong.

Over and over, you honestly appear not to have a strong acquaintance with the English language, posting quotes that disprove your own contentions or misunderstanding simple words like 'patch' and how they are used in English.

wowza

Thanks for proving my point once more. We were talking about how you misunderstand simple English words like "patch". Add another to the list.

It's actually 'Yowza".

Like I said - English 101. Check it out.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/yowza
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wowza

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

So what even if the scalp is the only thing holding all of that together? All the more reason to think that had to be separated to facilitate removal of the brain.

You don't even realize how badly you're being spanked, do you?

 

[BStrong]

Cranial vault literally just means the inside of your skull where the brain is. "There is an open comminuted fracture of the cranial vault, many portions of which are missing" could literally mean anything, and it certainly doesn't mean what you think it means. The cranial vault literally just means the dome covering the brain.

And not only have you convinced yourself that Dr. Finck could only observe the entry crater in the skull held together by the scalp, which is indicated by precisely zero (0) of the witness statements from the autopsy doctors or any other autopsy witnesses. Your game is literally just quoting the plain English spoken by the doctors and distorting it in your imagination to fit a hypothesis which probably isn't physically possible. Even if it was possible, wouldn't it be more professional (in the sense that, it lessens the chance of post-mortem damage to the brain) to remove any loose skull fragments? The one time Boswell mentioned skull fragments sticking to the scalp, it was while discussing what was happening while the photographs were being taken. And what on earth do you mean "there was no intact skull"? No, clearly some of it was left intact in the back-base area and the frontal area.

Oh brother, why should I bother HELP you muddy the waters? What you're saying doesn't even make sense in one's imagination.

Some time soon I might compile every autopsy statement describing the procedure of removing the brain and the size of the empty cranium, but I'll save the effort to post it elsewhere, such a task isn't worth trying just for a post on this one thread.

Best self contradictory sentence evah!

How can we miss you if you won't leave? Best to post material like that on a CT myrmidon forum. You might rate whatever passes for a language award in that arena.

Here...not so much. Your current batting average is poor at best, but that bolded statement will make a great stundie, and it's my dibs!

 

[MicahJava]

You don't even realize how badly you're being spanked, do you?

little doggie: Yap yap yap

 

[BStrong]

little doggie: Yap yap yap

Don't put yourself down, it isn't good for your mental health.

 

[bknight]

...

... Obviously, more over time I've realized that the large head wound is not the key to understanding the shooting evidence, but rather the small one.



...

And just as obviously you have shown no evidence of a small wound, yet you cling to it tenaciously completely ignoring the facts staring you in the face.

 

[MicahJava]

And just as obviously you have shown no evidence of a small wound, yet you cling to it tenaciously completely ignoring the facts staring you in the face.

If there was no small wound in JFK's head, then we would really have a conspiracy

 

[MicahJava]

Hank, I'm afraid your idea- that the autopsy doctors just left portions of skull bone stuck to the scalp all the way through the brain removal process and even until the torso dissection, and THIS is how Finck saw the entry wound on the back of of the head- is simply wrong, and you cannot sleep at night honestly thinking that is the answer.

This is from Finck's HSCA 3/11/1978 testimony:

Dr. PETTY. All right. Now let me recapitulate as I understand what you said here. One, you arrived at about 8:30 in the evening, give or take a little bit. Two, at the time you arrived you believed that the brain had already been removed.

Dr. FINCK. Yes.

Dr. PETTY. What was the situation that was verbally presented to you at the time you got there? How many gunshot wounds were there there that had been discovered at that time when you walked in the room? What was your briefing, in other words?

Dr. FINCK. I don't remember. I remember what I saw, the wounds I saw.

Dr. PETTY. All right.

Dr. FINCK. I interpreted myself but now to say what was the briefing at the time in detail, I unfortunately cannot do it. I remember, however, that on the phone Dr. Humes told me that he had good X ray films of the head. That I remember. What he told me when I arrived in the autopsy room in addition to that, I don't remember.

Dr. PETTY. All right. What wounds did you see when you. first arrived there? Let me put it that way. I am not trying to drive you into any corner at all, I just want to know what. wounds were there to the best of your knowledge when you got there.

Dr. FINCK. I saw a wound in the upper back/lower neck on the right side which I identified as a wound of entry. It had soiled, inverted edges which in non-technical language it means turned inward. I interpreted that wound as a wound of entry. The incision of the tracheotomy performed in Dallas we examined but I did not see a wound of exit along that tracheotomy incision and that was the puzzle, having a wound of entry with no corresponding wound of exit, and that was one of the reasons for asking for additional X ray films which I requested. So that is for the wound of the upper back/ lower neck on the right side. In addition, I saw in the back of the head on the right side a wound corresponding to that wound of the scalp. I observed a hole in the skull. That hole in the skull in the back of the head showed no crater when examined from the outside of the skull but when I examined the inside of the skull at the level of that hole in the bone I saw a crater and to me that was a positive unquestionable finding identifying a wound of entry in the back of the head.

Dr. LOCUVAM. Dr. Finck, is that symmetrical, inward beveled?

Dr. FINCK. I don't remember. I don't remember.

Dr. ROSE. Were there fracture lines radiating out from that beveled wound of the back of the skull?

Dr. FINCK. I don't remember. We would have to refer to the autopsy report.

note: What Finck doesn't remember is significant here. Notice how he doesn't immediately clarify that the area of skull with the entry crater was separated. Once again, he is clearly indicating here that he is talking about the wound still being in the intact, empty cranium.

Dr. COE. If I understood you, you said that the head post had already been done at the time you arrived.

Dr. FINCK. The brain had been removed.

Dr. COE. How had the skull cap been taken off to remove the brain?

Dr. FINCK. In that respect Dr. Humes told me that the fractures of the top and right side of the head were so extensive -- that wound was about 13 centimeters in diameter, it was a very large one. The fractures were so extensive, there was so much fragmentation of the skull that Dr. Humes did not have much sawing to do or he may not even have had any sawing to do.

Dr. COE. You mean he did not have to extend around to the left side of the head to remove the brain intact?

Dr. FINCK. He may have had a little sawing to do but as compared to an intact skull where you have to do complete sawing to remove the calvaria, the skull cap. That was not the case because of the extent of the fractures and damage to the skull.

Dr. COE. Did you see the wound of entry in a separate piece of bone that was handed to you or was that still hooked on to the body?

Dr. FINCK. It was definitely attached to the body, the wound of entry.

And Finck even talks about taking photographs of the entry crater in the intact, empty cranium!

Dr. BADEN. Were you present when these color photographs were taken of the head?

Dr. FINCK. I was at least for some of them. I remember positively that a Navy photographer took pictures and I wanted pictures of the crater in particular because this is a positive finding for a wound of entry in the back of the head. So I wanted a picture showing no crater from the outside and a clear-cut crater from the inside, but I don't know.

Dr. COE. You mean some of these pictures were taken after the brain had been removed?

Dr. FINCK. I don't know. The sequence of photographs, I was there when some of the photographs were taken.

Dr. COE. I am a little confused because you said before the brain had been removed before you came.

Dr. FINCK. As far as I remember.

Dr. COE. Then if you were there when photographs were taken of the head, it must have been after the brain had been removed.

Dr. WECHT. What Dr. Coe means is before you stated when you got there the brain had been removed, right?

Dr. FINCK. I think so.

...

Mr. PURDY. We have here a black and white blowup of that same spot. You previously mentioned that your attempt here was to photograph the crater, I think was the word that you used.

Dr. FINCK. In the bone, not in the scalp, because to determine the direction of the projectile the bone is a very good source of information so I emphasize the photographs of the crater seen from inside the skull. What you are showing me is soft tissue wound in the scalp.

Dr. PETTY. I won't comment. I just want to be sure that this is what you feel is the in-shoot wound and that is near the hairline and not the -- I hate to use any term to describe it but not the object near the central portion of the film near the end of the ruler.

Mr. PURDY. The red spot in the cowlick area. Dr. Finck, upon examining these two areas, what opinion do you have as to what, if anything, that red spot in the upper portions?

Dr. FINCK. I don't know what it is.

Mr. PURDY. We have here a black and white blowup, enlargement No. 16, of the upper area just to the right of the centimeter ruler. I wonder if that gives you any information as to whether you believe -- as to what you believe that could be.

Dr. FINCK. Does that correspond to this photograph here?

Mr. PURDY. Yes.

Dr. FINCK. I don't know what it is. How are these photographs identified as coming from the autopsy of President Kennedy?

Mr. PURDY. They are initialed. No. 43 here is a copy made from the original, which is initialed by Dr. Boswell. These were initialed at the time of the review and they were turned over to the Archives. Perhaps it would be appropriate soon to show the X ray which corresponds to this region.

Dr. PETTY. May I ask one other question, perhaps two. If I understand you correctly, Dr. Finck, you wanted particularly to have a photograph made of the external aspect of the skull from the back to show that there was no cratering to the outside of the skull.

Dr. FINCK. Absolutely.

Dr. PETTY. Did you ever see such a photograph?

Dr. FINCK. I don't think so and I brought with me memorandum referring to the examination of photographs in 1967 when I was recalled from Vietnam. I was asked to look at photographs and as I recall there were two blank 4 by 5 transparencies; in other words, two photographs that had been exposed but with no image and as I can recall I never saw pictures of the outer aspect of the wound of entry in the back of the head and inner aspect in the skull in order to show a crater although I was there asking for these photographs. I don't remember seeing those photographs.

Dr. PETTY. All right. Let me ask you one other question. In order to expose that area where the wound was present in the bone, did you have to or did someone have to dissect the I scalp off of the bone in order to show this?

Dr. FINCK. Yes.

Dr. PETTY. Was this a difficult dissection and did it go very low into the head so as to expose the external aspect of the posterior cranial fascia?

Dr. FINCK. I don't remember the difficulty involved in separating the scalp from the skull but this was done in order to have a clear view of the outside and inside to show the crater from the inside.

Dr. BADEN. Do you recall specifically that some dissection was done in the area?

Dr. FINCK. To free the skull from the scalp, to separate the scalp from the skull.

Dr. BADEN. Yes.

Dr. FINCK. Yes. I don't know who did that. I don't know the difficulty involved but the scalp is adherent to the skull and it had to be separated from it in order to show in the back of the head the wound in the bone.

Dr. PETTY. Did you see the brain?

Dr. FINCK. I saw the brain.

Is that enough, or do I have to keep listing all of the times Finck made this perfectly crystal clear? How many other times has he told the same story? And spare me a diatribe about 15-year-old memory. Finck is saying nothing different from what he told the Warren Commission in 1964, or to General Blumberg in 1965, or at the Clay Shaw trial in 1969. He's just reaffirming the obvious so the Hanks of the world can't distort what happened.

And to shy away from your awkward mess you claim to be some kind of victory, you bring up other random things that we've already talked about.

The hair was parted? So what? It's parted in a different way in the back wound photographs. That's all I can say about it. The doctors who were there didn't think parted hair was a big deal. And they said that ruler is just there to provide scale, not to measure anything.

You think that I claimed Humes or Boswell themselves said the brain stem was severed? No. I made it clear that there is a differentiation between some damage to the brainstem, as Humes said was probably caused by the bullet, and the even more conspiratorial interpretation of the brain stem being separated on arrival (indicating body alteration or at least some very traumatic activity around the base of the skull).

The torn half dollar bills that Oswald had? Why are you bringing that up like it helps you? A note by the DPD details two "half bills", with three-number digits circled that do not match any markings on a U.S. Dollar bill. It is not mentioned anywhere how or where those two items were found, but we do know that Oswald's wallet contained another dollar bill that was described as "bears pencil notation "300" - bill torn". What was he doing with a partially torn Dollar bill that day? Was he going to tear it all the way in half and give it to somebody else? And since we have THREE examples of these halved Dollar artifacts, they are almost certainly not some cute heirloom shared with a personal friend. Are you going to speculate that this is all some kind of freak coincidence? I'd rather not spend time on it because the problem speaks for itself.

The curbstone? Read the study. The patched area contained different color sand grains than the rest of the curb.

And since you're on a winning streak, you correct by "wowza" to "yowza". Okay, you got me. Want me to tell you another dirty secret? Sometimes I copy and paste testimony in plain text from Mcadams' website but then link to Mary Ferrell

 

[MicahJava]

No. The red circle on the x-ray is too low.

Maybe the red circle is in just the right place for some who have been opinionated on the X-rays, and too low for others. Maybe this whole cowlick thing is based on the illusion of consensus.

 

[BStrong]

Maybe the red circle is in just the right place for some who have been opinionated on the X-rays, and too low for others. Maybe this whole cowlick thing is based on the illusion of consensus.

Maybe your aunt had a mustache and was really your uncle.