Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[bknight]

No. I should caution you against accepting conspiracy theorist claims at face value. I know that CTs have insisted for nearly six decades now that Humes, Finck and Boswell weren't qualified to perform autopsies, but that is nonsense. The three men who performed the autopsy on JFK were eminently qualified to perform that autopsy.

Here's Finck's qualifications:
Mr. SPECTER - Would you state your full name for the record, please?
Colonel FINCK - My first name is Pierre. My middle initial is "A". My last name is Finck.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your profession, sir?
Colonel FINCK - I am a physician.
Mr. SPECTER - And by whom are you employed?
Colonel FINCK - By the United States Army.
Mr. SPECTER - And what is your rank?
Colonel FINCK - I am a lieutenant colonel in the Medical Corps.
Mr. SPECTER - Where did you obtain your medical degree?
Colonel FINCK - At the University of Geneva Medical School in Switzerland.
Mr. SPECTER - And in what year did you obtain that degree?
Colonel FINCK - In 1948.
Mr. SPECTER - What has your experience been in the medical profession subsequent to obtaining that degree?
Colonel FINCK - I had 4 years of training in pathology after my internship, 2 years, including 2 years of pathology at the University Institute of Pathology in Geneva, Switzerland, and 2 years at the University of Tennessee Institute of Pathology in Memphis, Tenn.
Mr. SPECTER - And how long have you been in the United States Army?
Colonel FINCK - Since 1955.
Mr. SPECTER - And what have your duties consisted of in the Army?
Colonel FINCK - From 1955 to 1958 I performed approximately 200 autopsies, many of them pertaining to trauma including missile wounds, stationed at Frankfort, Germany as pathologist of the. United States Army Hospital in Frankfurt, Germany.
Mr. SPECTER - Have you had any additional, special training or experience in missile wounds?
Colonel FINCK - For the past 3 years I was Chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology and in that capacity I reviewed personally all the cases forwarded to us by the Armed Forces, and some civilian cases from the United States and our forces overseas. The number of these cases amounts to approximately 400 cases. I was called as a consultant in the field of missile wounds for this particular case, and also last year in February 1963, the Surgeon General of the Army sent me to Vietnam for a wound ballistics mission, I had to testify in a murder trial involving a 30/30 rifle in the first week of March this year, and I came back yesterday after one week in Panama where I had to testify. I was sent to Panama by the Secretary of the Army regarding the fatalities of the events of 9-10 in January of 1964.
Mr. SPECTER - Have you been certified by the American Board of Pathology, Doctor Finck?
Colonel FINCK - I was certified in pathology anatomy by the American Board of Pathology in 1956, and by the same American Board of Pathology in the field of forensic pathology in 1961.

Humes' qualifications:
Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Humes, will you state your full name for the record, please?
Commander HUMES - James Joseph Humes.
Mr. SPECTER - And what is your profession or occupation, please?
Commander HUMES - I am a physician and employed by the Medical Department of the United States Navy.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your rank in the Navy?
Commander HUMES - Commander, Medical Corps. United States Navy.
Mr. SPECTER - Where did you receive your education, Commander Humes, please.
Commander HUMES - I had my undergraduate training at St. Joseph's College at Villanova University in Philadelphia. I received my medical degree in 1948 from the Jefferson Medical College of Philadelphia.
I received my internship and my postgraduate training in my special field of interest in Pathology in various Naval hospitals, and at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology at Walter Reed in Washington, D.C.
Mr. SPECTER - What do your current duties involve?
Commander HUMES - My current title is Director of Laboratories of the Naval Medical School at Naval Medical Center at Bethesda. I am charged with the responsibility of the overall supervision of all of the laboratory operations in the Naval medical center, two broad areas, one in the field of anatomic pathology which comprises examining surgical specimens and postmortem examinations and then the rather large field of clinical pathology which takes in examination of the blood and various body fluids.
Mr. SPECTER - Have you been certified by the American Board of Pathology?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; both in anatomic pathology and in clinical pathology in 1955.
Mr. SPECTER - What specific experience have you had, if any, with respect to gunshot wounds?
Commander HUMES - My type of practice, which fortunately has been in peacetime endeavor to a great extent, has been more extensive in the field of natural disease than violence. However, on several occasions in various places where I have been employed, I have had to deal with violent death, accidents, suicides, and so forth. Also I have had training at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, I have completed a course in forensic pathology there as part of my training in the overall field of pathology.

Boswell's qualifications:
Mr. SPECTER - Will you state your full name for the record, please?
Commander BOSWELL - J. Thornton Boswell, Commander, Medical Corps, U.S. Navy.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your profession?
Commander BOSWELL - Physician.
Mr. SPECTER - And where did you obtain your medical degree, please?
Commander BOSWELL - At the College of Medicine, Ohio State University.
Mr. SPECTER - And what experience have you had in your professional line subsequent to obtaining that degree?
Commander BOSWELL - I interned in the Navy and took my pathology training at St. Albans Naval Hospital in New York. I was certified by the American Board of Pathology in both clinical and pathological anatomy in 1957 and 1958.
Mr. SPECTER - And what is your duty assignment at the present time?
Commander BOSWELL - I am the Chief of Pathology at the National Naval Medical School.

I'm not going to argue with you, to justify MJ's continuation of nonsense. My comment was directed more to Humes and Boswell whose expertise in forensic autopsy procedures were not as extensive as Fink's, especially gunshot wounds. Note my initial post

The autopsy doctors weren't wrong/incorrect/inept(except for the lack of training in autopsy procedures

I'm not on the CT parade.

 

[Belz...]

But where on the back of the head did the bullet enter?

Why do you think that is so relevant? If you agree that Oswald had the motivation, the placement and the gun for the deed, and that the bullet hit Kennedy, killing him, what's the problem?

 

[HSienzant]

This routine isn't going to stop me from constantly pointing out the EOP stuff.

The 'routine' you reference is where you cite the autopsy doctors statements and then reach differing conclusions from them. My 'routine' is pointing out you have no special expertise to argue against their conclusions, and that their conclusions, and that of every forensic pathologist who has examined the extant autopsy materials, are exactly the same. One shot to the head did all the damage to JFK's head. You reach a different conclusion, and argue for two shots. When you say the evidence isn't going to stop you, what you're saying is you don't care what the evidence is, you've reached your conclusion and evidence can't change it.

I know the doctors officially concluded that a single bullet entered the back of the head (near the EOP) and exited the top of the head. Of course, you do know that there is ambiguity with what the Doctors truly believed.

One shot to the head is what they always said. You argue for two. You cannot say there is any ambiguity on this point. All three autopsy doctors concluded a single bullet struck the head. No ambiguity whatsoever in any of their testimony. The forensic pathologists on the HSCA panel likewise reached that same unanimous opinion -- one bullet struck JFK's head (Wecht said there was evidence of only one bullet strike, but throwing a bone to CTs like yourself, said he couldn't rule out a second bullet strike that had no evidence in support).

Dr. Burkley, Kennedy's personal physician who witnessed the autopsy, said several times that he either suspected or believed that more than one bullet entered the head.

You don't understand English, and the proper way to phrase this, or you are making a false claim. He didn't say that. You claim he said that. There is a big difference.

He told author Henry Hurt that he "always believed in a conspiracy".

No, you don't know that. You are assuming it. Henry Hurt made that claim, but cited nothing in support that is documentable. The proper way to phrase it is "Henry Hurt claimed that Burkley told him he (Burkley) "always believed in a conspiracy". There is a difference between the two claims that you attempt to blur by assuming Hurt is reporting the substance of the supposed conversation he had with Burkley accurately, and not taking something out of context. Hurt's claim is hearsay to you and me, and does not rise to the level of testimony. Burkley never said that, to your knowledge. Right?

Autopsy witnesses like Richard Lipsey described the doctors discussing two bullets entering the head, one of which entered near the EOP and exited the throat.

Repeating your claim doesn't make it more true. There is no evidence in the contemporaneous record of any such discussion, and Lipsey's recollection of this supposed event came A THIRD OF A CENTURY after the autopsy.

If you want to use evidence to suggest a way that a bullet could've entered near the EOP and exited the top of the head, go ahead.

I don't need your permission to cite the evidence, but thanks anyway. The evidence indicates one bullet entered the back of the head and exited the top right side of the head. You reach a contrary conclusion, but nobody here cares a whit about your layman's opinion. Nor should they.

The link to the Boston Globe bit was for illustrative purposes only. At first, If found to hard to believe that the Boston Globe article wasn't based on leaked information from the autopsy because it showed a bullet entry right where the autopsy report said it was, near the EOP. Subsequently, you convinced me that it was probably an odd coincidence. Maybe it traces back to the initial "occipital" descriptions of the large head wound.

That is the first time you admitted you were wrong. Where is the fireworks emoticon?

Where did Finck, Humes, and Boswell claim that they thought the air cavity on the torso X-ray was a bullet track?

Straw man. I wrote the HSCA forensic panel determined that was a bullet track from the upper back wound. And that Finck, Humes, and Boswell reached the same conclusion on the night of the autopsy with the body in front of them -- the bullet that entered the back exited the throat, not that the bullet that entered the rear of the head exited the throat (as you argue):
"Right, and the conclusions of the forensic pathologists who studied the extant autopsy evidence was that the above x-ray showed the path of the bullet that struck JFK in the upper back, not the path of a bullet that struck JFK in the head, right? And that was the conclusion of Finck, Humes, and Boswell when they had the body in front of them, isn't that right?"
In short, you're on a island. Every qualified pathologist reached the same conclusion. One you dispute. And we should listen to your arguments exactly why?

I know that John Stringer said he remembered the Doctors discussing "air in the throat" in relation to the anterior neck wound on the night of the autopsy.

How many decades after the fact did Stringer say that, and how much of an allowance do you make for errors in recollection, if any? Or do you simply assume all recollections are correct? We already know you will avoid answering these questions, because to answer honestly means you destroy your own argument.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I'm not going to argue with you, to justify MJ's continuation of nonsense.

Not attempting to justify MJ's nonsense. His nonsense is his own, and isn't attributable to Finck, Humes, or Boswell whatsoever. Or me. Or you.

My comment was directed more to Humes and Boswell whose expertise in forensic autopsy procedures were not as extensive as Fink's, especially gunshot wounds. Note my initial post

I did, and pointed out why I took exception to it. You appear to be echoing a false CT argument from Harold Weisberg, Sylvia Meagher, et. al. Weisberg claimed, in a magnificent example of exaggeration, that JFK had an autopsy 'unworthy of a bowery bum'. That is and remains a falsehood by Weisberg. What you wrote was more circumspect, but no less wrong:

The autopsy doctors weren't wrong/incorrect/inept(except for the lack of training in autopsy procedures)...

They were all well-trained in autopsy procedures. All three were qualified pathologists by virtue of education, training, and experience. All certainly knew how to perform an autopsy. I pointed that out.

In defending your initial claim, you appear to be suggesting that gunshot wound autopsies are somehow different (and require special training and background) than other autopsies:

My comment was directed more to Humes and Boswell whose expertise in forensic autopsy procedures were not as extensive as Fink's, especially gunshot wounds.

This is often claimed in the conspiracy literature as well (to denigrate the autopsy that was performed by Humes, Finck, and Boswell), but I can find no suggestion of that anywhere except in the CT JFK literature. And they don't document that assertion anywhere. Perhaps you can enlighten me why you are repeating this CT argument as well? In any event, at least two of the of three men (Finck and Humes) had performed autopsies on gunshot victims prior to the autopsy of JFK. Humes hinted at it in his testimony to the WC, but attested to that in the JAMA article of 1992, and affirmed in his ARRB testimony of 1996. Finck testified to that directly to the Warren Commission:

Colonel FINCK - From 1955 to 1958 I performed approximately 200 autopsies, many of them pertaining to trauma including missile wounds, stationed at Frankfort, Germany as pathologist of the United States Army Hospital in Frankfurt, Germany.

I'm not on the CT parade.

I didn't think you were, nor did I suggest that. I too sometimes fall prey to believing stuff I've read in CT books. But when I research it further, I find it is far from the truth. This is what I am suggesting you fell prey to -- believing some CT nonsense.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

So, since there's no evidence of a low-velocity bullet and no evidence of a deflection, your conjectured result never happened. You also only claim the bullet will USUALLY (but not always) deflect. Thank you for that admission.

False. The HSCA trajectory analysis shows JFK's head is canted approximately 17 degrees to the left of the centerline of the limousine at the time of the head shot. The limousine itself was determined to be moving almost directly away from the Depository's sixth floor south-east corner window at the time of that head shot:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/infojfk/jfk2/2p166f138.gif
That means a bullet striking the middle of the back of the head will exit approximately 17 degrees to the right of center of JFK's head, assuming a straight-line path and no deflection. Thomas Canning performed this analysis and he is qualified to determine this trajectory:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol2/pdf/HSCA_Vol2_0912_3_Canning.pdf
"Mr. Canning received a B.S., cum laude, in mechanical engineering and an M.S. in aeronautics from Stanford University. Since joining NASA in 1943 as an aeronautical research scientist, he has been the Branch Chief of the Hypersonic Free-Flight Branch, Group Leader of the Probes System Group of Pioneer-Venus Mission, and currently he is Staff Engineer of the Space Projects Division. Mr. Canning received the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement for his work in atmosphere entry body research for Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo. During his 23 years of work with the Hypersonic Free-flight Branch he has conducted and supervised research in the flight trajectory and stability of high speed projectiles and missiles. He has published numerous papers in that field.

Please read the analysis linked above and tell me specifically what is wrong with it.

According to WHOSE expert analysis exactly?

You keep mistaking assertions with evidence. They are not the same. The testimony of an expert is evidence. The assertions of a conspiracy theorist are not evidence. Your claims here are not evidence. Cite your evidence.

Also, please note you were asked previously by Axxman for your source for your contentions about the conjectured deflection. You still haven't cited anything but your own opinion.

Just to be clear, once more, your opinion, and that of other non-expert conspiracy theorists, is meaningless. Cite the expert opinion.

Hank

A mechanical engineer? Kennedy's position at ~z312-z313 is a matter of photography.

 

[MicahJava]

And yet you continue to post links where bullet fragments on the X-ray images of the skull are located in the upper portion of the skull. You can't have it both ways. The bullet may/may not have deflected after entry into the skull. Bullet fragments show a trajectory from the entry point at the back of the skull, exiting the top right, leaving those fragments. These are the concepts you linked, so you have proved the entry from the rear of the skull exiting the top right. You don't seem to be able to piece together the evidence.

That would be from a headshot with no relation to the shot that entered near the EOP.

 

[MicahJava]

I was unaware any veterinarians examined the autopsy evidence, or testified to the HSCA or Warren Commission. The pathologists who examined the body and the extant autopsy evidence are far more qualified than your attempt to diminish their expertise by calling them 'pet theorists'.

We're on to you.

What part of "In each instance, they identified the approximate location of the entry wound on a human skull and within the photographs as being in a position perceived by the panel to be below that described in the autopsy report" did you not understand?

Their marks are too low compared to the autopsy report they themselves prepared. Their memories of the wound location don't replace the actual autopsy report prepared on the weekend of the assassination.

Those marking they made 15 years after the assassination that you cite are simply wrong.

Hank

Humes & Boswell, due to their probably mistaken belief that the small white blob on the BOH photographs was the entry wound they remembered, marked the model skull in a position basically level with the EOP, neither below nor above (the white blob on the photographs appears significantly below the EOP, but Humes & Boswell didn't stick to that interpretation that strongly). Dr. Finck, on the other hand, placed the entry wound slightly above the EOP, like the autopsy report says. Nothing outside of what you could reasonably expect human memory changing, a centimeter here or there, not four inches when you were examining the body of the President for several hours.

 

[MicahJava]

Why do you think that is so relevant? If you agree that Oswald had the motivation, the placement and the gun for the deed, and that the bullet hit Kennedy, killing him, what's the problem?

The vast majority of the evidence indicates that the entry wound the autopsy doctors saw was near the external occipital protuberance. That causes serious problems with the single-assassin theory. Haven't you been reading?

 

[HSienzant]

A mechanical engineer?

Specializing in trajectory analysis for NASA. Here it is again, so you can ignore his expertise once more:
"Mr. Canning received a B.S., cum laude, in mechanical engineering and an M.S. in aeronautics from Stanford University. Since joining NASA in 1943 as an aeronautical research scientist, he has been the Branch Chief of the Hypersonic Free-Flight Branch, Group Leader of the Probes System Group of Pioneer-Venus Mission, and currently he is Staff Engineer of the Space Projects Division. Mr. Canning received the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement for his work in atmosphere entry body research for Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo. During his 23 years of work with the Hypersonic Free-flight Branch he has conducted and supervised research in the flight trajectory and stability of high speed projectiles and missiles. He has published numerous papers in that field.

How many papers on trajectory analysis have you published? What's your background in trajectory analysis?

According to WHOSE expert analysis exactly?

You keep mistaking assertions with evidence. They are not the same. The testimony of an expert is evidence. The assertions of a conspiracy theorist are not evidence. Your claims here are not evidence. Cite your evidence.

Also, please note you were asked previously by Axxman for your source for your contentions about the conjectured deflection. You still haven't cited anything but your own opinion.

Just to be clear, once more, your opinion, and that of other non-expert conspiracy theorists, is meaningless. Cite the expert opinion.

Kennedy's position at ~z312-z313 is a matter of photography.

You still cite nothing whatsoever.

Yes, it's a matter of photography, and Canning performed that analysis.

Canning determined the position of the limo in Dealey Plaza at the time of the head shot from the Z-film, the Muchmore film, and Nix film. He also determined the position of JFK within the limo via use of a model of JFK's head relative to the image in the Zapruder film. And finally he determined the entry and exit wound locations from consultation with the forensic pathology panel. It was then a matter of trajectory analysis to track back the bullet source to the area of the sixth floor window. And trajectory analysis is his particular expertise. So try again.

Your claim about JFK's head is from what source? Who performed the analysis? How did you reach your conclusion? You won't say, because you've got no evidence here. This is what you claimed, and you've yet to back that up with any evidence:

The Moorman photograph shows that Kennedy was not facing as far to the left as the HSCA trajectory analysis wanted.

Please tell us how you reached the conclusion that the Moorman photo shows JFK's head was not facing far enough to the left to confirm the HSCA trajectory analysis by Canning. Cite your source(s), and show their work.

You appear to make up stuff just to move the conversation along, and make it appear you have a valid argument. But when it comes time to actually document your assertions, you never do.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The vast majority of the evidence indicates that the entry wound the autopsy doctors saw was near the external occipital protuberance. That causes serious problems with the single-assassin theory. Haven't you been reading?

Did the three pathologists who conducted the autopsy on JFK reach that bolded conclusion above? Who exactly reached that conclusion, besides yourself, and what is their expertise in the matter?

You are asserting things you cannot prove, pretending they are true when they are merely your own unproven layman's conclusions.

You appear to make up stuff just to move the conversation along, and make it appear you have a valid argument. But when it comes time to actually document your assertions, you never do.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Humes & Boswell, due to their probably mistaken belief that the small white blob on the BOH photographs was the entry wound they remembered, marked the model skull in a position basically level with the EOP, neither below nor above (the white blob on the photographs appears significantly below the EOP, but Humes & Boswell didn't stick to that interpretation that strongly). Dr. Finck, on the other hand, placed the entry wound slightly above the EOP, like the autopsy report says. Nothing outside of what you could reasonably expect human memory changing, a centimeter here or there, not four inches when you were examining the body of the President for several hours.

You are still assuming what you need to prove. You are above asserting that the doctors can't be mis-remembering the wound by four inches, but you cite no studies on memory to establish that. You are simply assuming it. How many years after the assassination did they mark the skulls?

Meanwhile, you admit they saw an erroneous [too low] entry wound in the photographs that wasn't actually there, and quite possibly that influenced their judgment about where to mark the skull.

One need only point out that their skull markings didn't even agree with each other, and differed by about an inch to establish your argument is wrong. Of course they could mis-remember and be influenced by erroneous interpretation of the autopsy photos. You are now quibbling solely about how much they could be wrong, but offer no support for your argument that four inches is too much.

And you are arguing the autopsy x-rays and photos the HSCA relied on are all forgeries or that the HSCA panel was incompetent and somehow all those forensic pathologists all reached the same erroneous conclusion somehow.

And you are arguing that your layman's interpretation of the autopsy evidence is somehow better than theirs. Sorry, I'm not buying your assertions here.

You appear to make up stuff just to move the conversation along, and make it appear you have a valid argument. But when it comes time to actually document your assertions, you never do.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

That would be from a headshot with no relation to the shot that entered near the EOP.

Refresh my memory, how many of the autopsy doctors and HSCA forensic pathology panel concluded there was a headshot that had no relation to the entry wound in the back of the head?

Is it Zero? Zilch? Nada? None?

You are pushing that boulder uphill but appear surprised when it keeps rolling back down and crushing your argument.

You have ZERO evidence for a separate headshot from the one that entered the back of the head.

You appear to make up stuff just to move the conversation along, and make it appear you have a valid argument. But when it comes time to actually document your assertions, you never do.

Hank

 

[bknight]

That would be from a headshot with no relation to the shot that entered near the EOP.

Gibberish.

 

[RoboTimbo]

That would be from a headshot with no relation to the shot that entered near the EOP.

Who fired the second shot and where did it come from? What caliber was it? Rifle or handgun? Where did that assassin go? How were they related to Oswald?

Wow, you've got your work cut out for you. Get busy.

 

[MicahJava]

You are still assuming what you need to prove. You are above asserting that the doctors can't be mis-remembering the wound by four inches, but you cite no studies on memory to establish that. You are simply assuming it. How many years after the assassination did they mark the skulls?

Meanwhile, you admit they saw an erroneous [too low] entry wound in the photographs that wasn't actually there, and quite possibly that influenced their judgment about where to mark the skull.

One need only point out that their skull markings didn't even agree with each other, and differed by about an inch to establish your argument is wrong. Of course they could mis-remember and be influenced by erroneous interpretation of the autopsy photos. You are now quibbling solely about how much they could be wrong, but offer no support for your argument that four inches is too much.

Um, you're the one with a ridiculous position that requires proof. Not only are you saying that Humes, Boswell, and Finck simultaneously got the location of the entry wound wrong, but you are also positing that the statements by John Stringer, Francis X. O'Neil, Roy Kellerman, Richard Lipsey, and Charles Boyers are all wrong, because their statements all indicate a low entry wound. Dr. George Burkley also verified the face sheet diagram which showed the entry roughly in the occipital area, and was probably the inspiration behind the passage in William Manchester's book which reads: "The Lincoln continues to slow down. Its interior is a place of horror. The last bullet has torn through John Kennedy’s cerebellum, the lower part of his brain". Burkley was apparently not asked about the specific location of the entry wound in the head by the HSCA because of their agenda to push their pet theory, so we may only consider him a half-EOP witness. So you are positing six stooges, all who stared at Kennedy's body as it was being examined for several hours.

And, of course, we have the severe contradiction between the cowlick entry theory and the repeated statements by Dr. Finck saying that he could examine the entry wound in the skull after the brain had already been removed, as a perforation in the occipital bone and not within a previously-removed portion of the skull. This has not been refuted by you except for baby crap you're smart enough to know is so wrong. Oh, and there's that possible bullet fragment in the upper neck identified by Cyril Wecht.

And you are arguing the autopsy x-rays and photos the HSCA relied on are all forgeries or that the HSCA panel was incompetent and somehow all those forensic pathologists all reached the same erroneous conclusion somehow.

And you are arguing that your layman's interpretation of the autopsy evidence is somehow better than theirs. Sorry, I'm not buying your assertions here.

You appear to make up stuff just to move the conversation along, and make it appear you have a valid argument. But when it comes time to actually document your assertions, you never do.

Hank

Well, let's see. We've already shown that the interpretation of the "red spot" on the BOH photographs as an entry wound is directly contradicted by everybody at the autopsy, including the person who took the photographs. Second, it is at least quite clear to me that the red spot is about a couple of inches lower than the area on the X-ray hypothesized by Clear/HSCA to be an entrance wound (see morphing head gif here), so you would probably would have to posit that the doctor is pulling back the scalp for some reason. If you can show me how this is an optical illusion, please do so, otherwise I will assume that you see the same thing I do and you're lying if you say otherwise.

Third, the HSCA's panel bundled their pet theory on this highly questionable interpretation of the BOH photographs. Fourth, they just liked the idea of the wound being there because it made a bit more sense with the single-assassin theory. Fifth, they were working on the highly questionable assumption that a bullet entering near the EOP would necessarily cause severe damage to the cerebellum, no matter where it went after entering. Sixth, forensic pathologists do not have to be qualified to interpret X-rays of gunshot wounds, especially ones with the complexities of JFK, which were taken with portable equipment to locate bullet fragments and not to give a clear view of the wounds. Seventh, I've established that there are just as many relevant experts (by your standards) who have seen the X-rays and couldn't identify any particular entry wound.

Refresh my memory, how many of the autopsy doctors and HSCA forensic pathology panel concluded there was a headshot that had no relation to the entry wound in the back of the head?

Is it Zero? Zilch? Nada? None?

You are pushing that boulder uphill but appear surprised when it keeps rolling back down and crushing your argument.

You have ZERO evidence for a separate headshot from the one that entered the back of the head.

You appear to make up stuff just to move the conversation along, and make it appear you have a valid argument. But when it comes time to actually document your assertions, you never do.

Besides the fact that a second gunshot creating the large head wound can probably be the only logical answer when you accept the EOP wound, you forget that tangential wounds can have external beveling associated with points of "entry", called "keyhole" wounds. You also forget the possibility that clearly definable beveled entries in skull bone could be physically blown out of the head by the gunshot. You also forget that KEY FORENSIC EVIDENCE IN THE CASE, INCLUDING PHOTOGRAPHS AND SKULL FRAGMENTS HAVE GONE MISSING.

 

[Axxman300]

In the theoretical EOP-throat connection, the bullet would probably be low-velocity and would have to deflect sharply.

Oh well that explains it. All we have to do is go back and look at the film to find the gunman firing at Kennedy while kneeling on the trunk of the limo.

I mean you must understand that a low velocity round isn't going to exit the skull unless it's fired at point-blank range, and even then there's no guarantee, right?

But also, if a Carcano round entered the cowlick at z313, it would have to deflect to the right or it would exit the face. The Moorman photograph shows that Kennedy was not facing as far to the left as the HSCA trajectory analysis wanted.

Zapruder trumps Moorman. There is more visual data in his film than the others combined.

More important, you are the last person who should be talking about what a bullet should or shouldn't be doing. You're blindness about cavitation underlines your ignorance on the subject.

A bullet is going do one of three things once it's fired:

1. What it's designed to do.

2. What you want it to do.

3. What it feels like doing today because "Weeeee!"

1 & 2 are 99% of shots fired. Those 1% of crazy rounds are the ones folks remember.

The prime example is Oswald's first shot which missed because it - deflected - when it hit the Oak tree (or whatever), and went wild. Even with the power and penetration of the 6.5x52mm round it came down to striking whatever it hit at just the right angle. Ask anyone who shoots regularly, and ask anyone who has fired their weapon in combat where those bullets are hitting real-world materials, and they will have plenty of crazy bullet stories for you.

Oswald's Carcano rounds performed within their parameters based on range, and area of impact. The head would is EXCLUSIVE to the 6.5x52mm Carcano round.

 

[Axxman300]

The vast majority of the evidence indicates that the entry wound the autopsy doctors saw was near the external occipital protuberance. That causes serious problems with the single-assassin theory. Haven't you been reading?

Have YOU been reading?

The vast majority of the evidence points to Oswald as the LONE shooter.

The vast majority of the physical evidence: His gun(s), finger prints, place of employment.

The vast majority of the ballistic evidence: Three 6.5x52mm rounds fired from 6th floor of TSBD, two striking JFK, one in the back that exits the through to strike Connally, and the other in the BACK of the head.

The vast majority of the forensic evidence: One GSW to JFK's back which exits through the throat (backed up by fiber evidence from his shirt and tie), and a SINGLE GSW to the back of the head which cavitated as it fragmented inside the head, and blowing out the right top of the skull.

Citing CT whackjobs doesn't make any of this less true.

 

[Axxman300]

Besides the fact that a second gunshot creating the large head wound can probably be the only logical answer when you accept the EOP wound, you forget that tangential wounds can have external beveling associated with points of "entry", called "keyhole" wounds. You also forget the possibility that clearly definable beveled entries in skull bone could be physically blown out of the head by the gunshot. .

YOU forget that none of this applies to JFK's head wound.

YOU ignore the 6.5x52mm's capabilities to the detriment of your argument.

YOU haven't explained why no second shot to the head is visible, nor was reported, or why that second bullet was never found.*

You also forget that KEY FORENSIC EVIDENCE IN THE CASE, INCLUDING PHOTOGRAPHS AND SKULL FRAGMENTS HAVE GONE MISSING

Really? Which ones? Can you cite the National Archive's exhibit numbers?

If the skull fragments are missing it is because RFK had them interred with the body when it was moved to it's final resting place along with the brain.

Since you don't know what photographs are missing, if any, you can't say what they show, nor can you say what the other photographs show because you haven't seen them.

* I'll save you some work - THERE WAS NO SECOND BULLET TO THE HEAD.

 

[MicahJava]

Oh well that explains it. All we have to do is go back and look at the film to find the gunman firing at Kennedy while kneeling on the trunk of the limo.

You just... can't grasp the concept of a bullet deflecting upon encountering an obstacle, can you?

I mean you must understand that a low velocity round isn't going to exit the skull unless it's fired at point-blank range, and even then there's no guarantee, right?

What is your deal with stating obvious falsehoods as facts? I just went on Google scholar and searched "exit wound", "low-velocity", "skull" and found endless cases.

A passage from one of the oldest books on wound ballistics describes exactly the scenario required for the EOP-throat connection:

"Penetrating Fractures. - In this class of skull fractures there is a wound of entrance and no apparent wound of exit. The missile is generally lodged within the skull unless it has, as sometimes happens, passed down the neck."

- Gunshot injuries: how they are inflicted, their complications and treatment by Louis Anatole La Garde, 1914

Zapruder trumps Moorman. There is more visual data in his film than the others combined.

Can you draw a circle or an arrow showing what you're talking about when you say that?

 

[Axxman300]

You just... can't grasp the concept of a bullet deflecting upon encountering an obstacle, can you?

I can, I even cited Oswald's first shot.

Why can't you grasp that all of those photos and sketches you endless post of the skull and brain depict the damage done by a lone 6.5x52mm round?

What is your deal with stating obvious falsehoods as facts? I just went on Google scholar and searched "exit wound", "low-velocity", "skull" and found endless cases.

First off, you have yet to settle on a caliber for your fantasy subsonic round, so I have to generalize. Next, how many of those "endless cases" involve striking a target moving away from the shooter at a minimum range of 100 yards? My guess is your case histories narrow quite a bit.

More to the point, the fiber evidence matches the forensics and ballistics PROVING a lone 6.5x52mm round struck JFK in the back and exited his throat and continued into Connally's body.

That's a big mountain of "truth" to climb.

Can you draw a circle or an arrow showing what you're talking about when you say that?

Not playing your game.