Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[RoboTimbo]

The Warren Commission endorsed the EOP location for the entrance wound in the back of the head. The "cowlick" location for the entrance wound in the back of the head was developed by the Clark panel and the HSCA. The wide difference between the two locations was clearly addressed for the first time in Dr. Finck's 1969 testimony at the trial of Clay Shaw, in which he went on the record disagreeing with the Clark panel's upper "cowlick" placement of the entrance wound.

I notice you've stopped posting the picture of the entrance wound. Got spanked too many times on it?

 

[MicahJava]

I notice you've stopped posting the picture of the entrance wound. Got spanked too many times on it?

Do you believe on faith that the red spot on the BOH photographs is THE entrance wound described by the doctors/the autopsy report? Drs. Humes, Boswell, Finck, the autopsy photographer John Stringer, and X-ray technician John Ebersole specifically denied that the red spot is an entry wound. Humes and Finck suggested that it could be a drop of blood, while Boswell stated to the HSCA and the ARRB that the red spot is an injury in the scalp related to the large head wound.

It is true that hair is parted in autopsy photographs to expose wounds that cannot be exposed by shaving hair, as shown in Scott a. Wagner's book Color Atlas of the Autopsy here:

NSFW - autopsy photographs

NSFW - autopsy photographs

But, as Boswell said, it could have been a wound in the scalp, albeit not THE entrance wound. And the autopsy doctors always said that the hair did not need to be parted or washed to expose THE entrance wound. Also notice how the wounds in the photographs shown above show, well, a hole! A wound devoid of scalp AND skull. The red spot on the BOH autopsy photographs appears little more than two-dimensional. Dr. Humes said that the ruler in the BOH photographs is to provide scale, not to measure the red spot. The fashion Kennedy's hair is parted also differs between photographs. Autopsy photographs have also gone missing. So no matter how you approach it, cowlickers are taking autopsy photographs out of context.

 

[BStrong]

C'mon MJ:

You are the one that used the term. A generic description of backspatter doesn't explain why you used that term and what you believe the term means in the context of JFK's GSW to the head.

What does the backspatter as observed in the Z film tell us?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Unfortunately, Micha Java's opinion of what a wound should, or should not, look like is not an accurate measure of if the photographs show a blatant wound.

 

[MicahJava]

Either you are unfamiliar with the WC, or your definition of "EOP" is a movable feast.

Quite aside from figure 29, the body of the WC makes it quite clear the autopsy is accurate. Mr Finck's later rememberances are less reliable than contemporary records, because they are just that, rememberances.

These are the drawings made under the supervision of Dr. Humes as an accurate representation of the small head wound:

It appears near the EOP. The Warren Commission endorsed the EOP wound. The existence of the EOP wound is a separate matter than the existence of more than one gunshot to Kennedy's head. The Warren Commission obviously endorsed only one gunshot to the head.

 

[MicahJava]

Unfortunately, Micha Java's opinion of what a wound should, or should not, look like is not an accurate measure of if the photographs show a blatant wound.

Okay, well not only was Dr. Pierre Finck experienced in gunshot wound autopsies before the assassination, he was a participant in the actual autopsy of JFK, and other gunshot wound autopsies afterwards. He always said the red spot on the BOH photographs was not the entry wound. Deal?

 

[abaddon]

These are the drawings made under the supervision of Dr. Humes as an accurate representation of the small head wound:

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/cM8BeTz.png[/qimg]

It appears near the EOP. The Warren Commission endorsed the EOP wound. The existence of the EOP wound is a separate matter than the existence of more than one gunshot to Kennedy's head. The Warren Commission obviously endorsed only one gunshot to the head.

How many do YOU endorse?

 

[Axxman300]

The "cowlick" part of the skull was right beside the large defect (which you call the exit wound, although the autopsy doctors always stated that external beveling could only be observed on skull fragments that were previously blasted out in Dealey Plaza). So any entrance wound in the "cowlick" part of the skull would be among the portions of the skull removed to facilitate the removal of the brain.

You're make a lot of assumptions that are not supported by the evidence. More important is the fact that since the bulk of the autopsy photos remain restricted to public view you have no idea what they [the pathologists] actually saw, and to refute their testimony, and findings without any concrete counter evidence is ridiculous. I should throw in the fact that Pathologists have an additional 10 years of education before they get to practice, and you- a YouTube commando with a Google Tab are in no way qualified to counter anything they say on any level.

Dr. Finck arrived at the autopsy after the brain had already been removed, and he always said that he could examine (and witness the photographing of) the small hole in the skull indicating an entrance. For many reasons, the entire top of the skull, including the "cowlick" part, is removed during an autopsy to facilitate removal of the brain.

Why is it so hard for you to grasp the concept of using a bone-saw to cut around the bullet hole? We have even posted links to Humes discussing how he had to "cut carefully" to remove the brain.

We get it, you need a conspiracy to hang your world view on, but if there was on involved with the murder of JFK you won't find it in Dealey Plaza. The ballistics alone slam the door on that party.

 

[Axxman300]

It is true that hair is parted in autopsy photographs to expose wounds that cannot be exposed by shaving hair, as shown in Scott a. Wagner's book Color Atlas of the Autopsy here:

Neat.

Which one is made by a 6.5x52mm bullet?

I'm guessing none of them.

The FBI and Secret Service had to buy Carcanos and shoot hundreds of rounds into various targets before they understood the performance of the bullet.

But, as Boswell said, it could have been a wound in the scalp, albeit not THE entrance wound.

So he didn't know or couldn't recall.

Also notice how the wounds in the photographs shown above show, well, a hole! A wound devoid of scalp AND skull.

The photos NOT of a 6.5x52mm round.

The red spot on the BOH autopsy photographs appears little more than two-dimensional. Dr. Humes said that the ruler in the BOH photographs is to provide scale, not to measure the red spot

.

So they just took a photo of the back of the head for no reason?

The fashion Kennedy's hair is parted also differs between photographs.

Weird, it's almost as if they had cut around the head, and peeled the scalp back to cut the skull cap off, and remove the brain, and pulled the scalp back into position for the pictures.

Wonder what that does to a guy's hairstyle?

Autopsy photographs have also gone missing.

No. I've posted the 2004 inventory, and the negatives are still around.

So no matter how you approach it, cowlickers are taking autopsy photographs out of context.

No we're not.

We haven't seen them, so we're not stupid enough to confuse conjecture with fact. We don't use them in context because we don't use them at all.

You're the guy posting them...just like the Bigfooters post the Patterson Film stills, you see what you want to see.

 

[MicahJava]

Why is it so hard for you to grasp the concept of using a bone-saw to cut around the bullet hole? We have even posted links to Humes discussing how he had to "cut carefully" to remove the brain

Drs. Humes and Boswell always said that virtually so sawing the skull was necessary to create a skull cavity large enough to remove the brain. The area of skull around the large defect was so damaged, that portions of skull bone would naturally separate in their hands. This allows little precision. Since the cowlick mark on the X-ray purported to be an entry wound is right beside the large defect, that area would have been among the portions of skull to come off.

Even if the skull was in a condition that allowed typical sawing, the "cowlick" portion of the skull would have to be among the areas separated, otherwise you could not separate or remove the brain.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Since the cowlick mark on the X-ray purported to be an entry wound is right beside the large defect, that area would have been among the portions of skull to come off.

Post your qualifications for making such a determination.

Even if the skull was in a condition that allowed typical sawing, the "cowlick" portion of the skull would have to be among the areas separated, otherwise you could not separate or remove the brain.

Once you've posted your qualifications, I will stop thinking of your postings as devoid of substance.

This isn't on par with your expertise in firearms, is it?

 

[BStrong]

Drs. Humes and Boswell always said that virtually so sawing the skull was necessary to create a skull cavity large enough to remove the brain. The area of skull around the large defect was so damaged, that portions of skull bone would naturally separate in their hands. This allows little precision. Since the cowlick mark on the X-ray purported to be an entry wound is right beside the large defect, that area would have been among the portions of skull to come off.

Even if the skull was in a condition that allowed typical sawing, the "cowlick" portion of the skull would have to be among the areas separated, otherwise you could not separate or remove the brain.

"Backspatter" you used the term more than once. Why can't you explain what it means in your own (presumably) words past a generic description?

If you can't explain what the words mean in the context you used them, the only reasonable answer is that you glom onto words and terms and use them without understanding what they mean.

Pretty sad, especially for somebody that favorably compares their intellectual position with Aristotle and Plato.

I think you may have more in common with The Sicilian Lawyer:

 

[MicahJava]

"Backspatter" you used the term more than once. Why can't you explain what it means in your own (presumably) words past a generic description?

If you can't explain what the words mean in the context you used them, the only reasonable answer is that you glom onto words and terms and use them without understanding what they mean.

Pretty sad, especially for somebody that favorably compares their intellectual position with Aristotle and Plato.

I think you may have more in common with The Sicilian Lawyer:

The Z film shows no obvious backspatter from an entry in the back of the head. No significant debris is shown moving backwards. Although backspatter does disperse faster than forward spatter.

 

[BStrong]

The Z film shows no obvious backspatter from an entry in the back of the head. No significant debris is shown moving backwards. Although backspatter does disperse faster than forward spatter.

You'd better go back to whatever Ctist website you picked this crap up from, because "backspatter" as you are applying it to the Z film is incorrect.

"Back Spatter" describes a type of arterial bleeding, but the application of forensic science involved in it's evaluation does not involve the evaluation of video footage. it is related to blood stains on materials or persons at the scene of a death or injury. It is not exclusive to projectile impacts only and falls into different categories of blood stains depending on the type of weapon used, climate, etc.

http://www.forensicsciencesimplified.org/blood/principles.html

Blood spatter is categorized as impact spatter (created when a force is applied to a liquid blood source) or projection spatter (caused by arterial spurting, expirated spray or spatter cast off an object). The characteristics of blood spatter depend on the speed at which the blood leaves the body and the type of force applied to the blood source.

And further:

http://www.forensicsciencesimplified.org/blood/glossary.html

"Backspatter Pattern - A bloodstain pattern resulting from blood drops that traveled in the opposite direction of the external force applied; associated with an entrance wound created by a projectile."

To be fair, you or somebody else probably ran into this:

https://www.azflse.org/download.cfm?filename=BLOODSPATTERVOCABULARY&type=pdf&loc=csiarizona

"Back Spatter -- Blood directed back towards the source of energy or force that caused the spatter"

Saw a nifty term that sounded all sciency, but didn't read the rest of the material that related back spatter to blood stain pattern analysis.

 

[MicahJava]

BStrong, your sources only use that wording because it is assumed that a gunshot wounding incident would not have a video of it happening.

 

[Axxman300]

Drs. Humes and Boswell always said that virtually so sawing the skull was necessary to create a skull cavity large enough to remove the brain. The area of skull around the large defect was so damaged, that portions of skull bone would naturally separate in their hands. This allows little precision. Since the cowlick mark on the X-ray purported to be an entry wound is right beside the large defect, that area would have been among the portions of skull to come off.

Even if the skull was in a condition that allowed typical sawing, the "cowlick" portion of the skull would have to be among the areas separated, otherwise you could not separate or remove the brain.

And yet they still sawed the skull cap off as per the standard autopsy protocol, as per Dr. Humes' statement. They cut where they had to cut, and worked around the damage where they could not cut, this is a painfully simple concept for everyone else reading this thread.

 

[Axxman300]

BStrong, your sources only use that wording because it is assumed that a gunshot wounding incident would not have a video of it happening.

So what's the percentage of headshots that occur on camera verses headshots where there are few or no witnesses (other than the killer)?

Just asking for my police friends to make their job easier in case there's some giant visual archive of murder they don't know about.

The great-but-sad thing about the United States is our collective knowledge of gunshot wounds to almost every part of the human body.

 

[Axxman300]

The Z film shows no obvious backspatter from an entry in the back of the head. No significant debris is shown moving backwards. Although backspatter does disperse faster than forward spatter.

Which means that there was NO SECOND SHOT TO THE HEAD.

Thanks for playing

 

[Tomtomkent]

These are the drawings made under the supervision of Dr. Humes as an accurate representation of the small head wound:

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/cM8BeTz.png[/qimg]

It appears near the EOP. The Warren Commission endorsed the EOP wound. The existence of the EOP wound is a separate matter than the existence of more than one gunshot to Kennedy's head. The Warren Commission obviously endorsed only one gunshot to the head.

Are those the ONLY images in the WCR?
How close is that sketch to the "cowlick"?
Why is no wound in the "EOP" visible in the photographs?

 

[BStrong]

BStrong, your sources only use that wording because it is assumed that a gunshot wounding incident would not have a video of it happening.

You (or some other CT monger) used the term "backspatter" because you or they didn't know what it means and had no idea that somebody else did know what the tern means and would call you out on your ignorance.

Par for the course with you in this thread.

Aristotle and Plato would not approve.

At some point even a train wreck comes to a stop, but you seem to be a perpetual motion machine of fail.