Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[Tomtomkent]

The 1966 inventory of the autopsy photographs, written by Humes et. al, describes the open-cranium photographs as showing a wound of entrance in the posterior skull.

And? How does that mean YOUR interpretation is correct?

 

[HSienzant]

But does Humes indicate that there existed an entry wound near Kennedy's EOP? Let your logical deductions start with that. Can a 6.5 round enter there and exit the top of the head while staying consistent with all of the official evidence? It doesn't seem like it can.

So by your own admission yet another argument for the entry wound being higher than Humes remembered it. Thanks again.

Sometimes I get the impression you're trying out a comedy routine, where you argue for one thing and cite the facts for the exact opposite.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The Rydberg drawings are meant to show the wound as measured in the autopsy report, 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the EOP.

The red spot on the BOH photographs appears to be situated about a couple of inches above "the level of the top of the ears". The head is tilted back, so it can be hard to see, but look at this stereoscopic gif of the BOH photographs here:

NSFW - autopsy photographs

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

To me, the red spot has the appearance of being somewhere between the actual EOP and the area 4 inches higher endorsed by some as an entry point in the skull. Maybe the red spot a little more than ~2 inches above the EOP?

Would that put it about the level of the top of the ears? A while back (six months or more) you were arguing the red spot could NOT be the entry wound, now you're arguing as if it's in the right place to be exactly that. You really need to make up your mind.

The bottom of the hairline is significantly below the EOP.[ The white matter at the bottom of the hairline with the semicircular dark spot below it is below the EOP. The other semicircular dark spot to the right and at the 1 O' clock position, I don't know.

And didn't the autopsy doctors argue for the entry wound at the location of the white matter in their testimony years after the fact? In fact, didn't they, by your own admission now (you call it white matter, not an entry wound) recall the location as too low on the head?

Like as we covered months ago here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11506955&postcount=1668

And didn't you recently admit it's standard practice to part the head hair to expose bullet wounds in the head? You did. Here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11976975&postcount=1462

And where is the head hair parted? At what you call the 'red spot' in a black-and-white photo, which you argue is NOT a bullet wound.

And didn't we cover all this ground six months ago or more?

Like here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11838658&postcount=3537
And here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11829972&postcount=3341
And here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11507004&postcount=1671
And here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11500500&postcount=1540
And here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11494120&postcount=1433

Note: The oldest of these is 11.5 months ago (September 16th of 2016).

At what point will you understand it's not a matter of beating the horse harder to make it get up and walk? It's a matter of your equine being deceased.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

And you ignored the link that Hank provided:

(Later) Commander HUMES - These exhibits again are schematic representations of what we observed at the time of examining the body of the late President.

It wasn't the first time he ignored it. It won't be the last, either. He (and all CTs*) have this thing about ignoring facts that are contrary to their beliefs. "Don't confuse me with the facts" could be emblazoned on the Conspiracy Seal.

Hank
__________
* That's how they remain CTs.

 

[HSienzant]

Thus, Finck's 1969 testimony at the trial of Clay Shaw marks the first time a JFK autopsy doctor specifically denied the cowlick entry theory.

So you're pinning your argument on a recollection by Finck approximately six years after the assassination, instead of the autopsy photos and X-Rays taken on the night of the autopsy?

So just establish Finck's recollection was 100% correct, and we can all go home happy.

Ball in your court. Note I said "establish", not "assume". There is a difference.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Humes directed the back wound to be drawn higher as the result of an agenda to endorse a single bullet entering the back and exiting the throat.

That's interesting.

Please tell us when the Warren Commission first came up with the single bullet theory and when the drawings were made. For your claim to be true, the Warren Commission had to come up with the single bullet theory BEFORE the drawings.

So tell us when each happened. Then cite the evidence the Warren Commission reached out to Humes and convinced him to lie.

You won't, because you can't. It couldn't possibly have happened that way. Humes testimony was on March 16th, 1964. It was at that time the Rydberg drawings were already entered into evidence.
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0178a.htm

It was in April (14th and 21st) of 1964 that the Warren Commission first discussed the issue of a single bullet wounding both JFK and Connally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-bullet_theory
"On April 14 and 21, two conferences were held at the Commission to determine when, exactly, the president and governor were struck."

You are clearly just making up an conspiracy argument to excuse the inaccuracies in the schematic drawing Rydberg made and which YOU CITED AS ACCURATE.

Your arguments are a joke. You try to convince us the drawings are accurate, then argue they deliberately misplace at least one of the wounds, and concede they are therefore inaccurate.

If you think the bullet never exited the throat, tell us where it went. And why the autopsy report written on the weekend of the assassination reached that very conclusion.
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0284a.htm

So what's the problem here, except the schematic drawing you cited as accurate but are now arguing misplaces at least one of the wounds?

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

The 1966 inventory of the autopsy photographs, written by Humes et. al, describes the open-cranium photographs as showing a wound of entrance in the posterior skull.

Photographs which you have not seen.

 

[Axxman300]

Backspatter is the matter that spurts out of the point of entry for a projectile. It can be identified through crime scene analysis or, if available, video footage of gunshot wounding incidents. I don't know what kind of game you're playing where you try (and fail) to confuse others to intimidate them on a little internet forum.

Just pointing out that you blew the the definition of cavitation as applied to bullets, and now you're throwing around back-splatter like you know what you're talking about - even though it does not apply to the JFK Assassination.

He's not playing a game, there is no back-splatter from the entry wound, and there's a very good reason why.

 

[Axxman300]

On the existing BOH photographs, if one of the ~two semicircular dark spots in the hairline are not the EOP wound, then it could be hiding under a bit of hair. There were autopsy photographs that went missing before the official inventory was made. The autopsy doctors and photographer John Stringer have described taking clear photographs of an entry wound near the EOP in the scalp and skull.

And these pictures were still in the National Archives as of 2005.

Plus, they're listed and inventoried as they're taken. The missing photograph claim comes only from CTists, not grownups or the mentally well.

 

[Axxman300]

On the existing BOH photographs, if one of the ~two semicircular dark spots in the hairline are not the EOP wound, then it could be hiding under a bit of hair. There were autopsy photographs that went missing before the official inventory was made. The autopsy doctors and photographer John Stringer have described taking clear photographs of an entry wound near the EOP in the scalp and skull.

Considering that you have not seen all of the photographs you can't say what any of them detail. You don't know if they are missing or not.

You have no proof of any pictures being destroyed before they were inventoried (this is a sophomoric lie), the photographs were in the possession of the KENNEDY FAMILY. Are you really stupid enough to believe the Kennedy's didn't make copies?

Don't answer that, it's obvious.

 

[Axxman300]

Dr. Humes was claiming that the autopsy face sheet diagram only showed a general area of the wounds, then claimed that the Rydberg drawings are a more precise depiction of the wounds.



But does Humes indicate that there existed an entry wound near Kennedy's EOP? Let your logical deductions start with that. Can a 6.5 round enter there and exit the top of the head while staying consistent with all of the official evidence? It doesn't seem like it can.

1. Nobody thinks the Ryberg drawings are accurate. They were not meant to be used as prosecution models, just drawings to give a general idea of what happened for public consumption once the WC was published. Nothing more.

2. Hell yes the 6.5x52 can do it. We know because this was well within it's performance model. The bullet can pass through 4 feet of pine, or 2 feet of elm wood and emerge undamaged.

You are unqualified on any level to discuss even basic ballistics, let alone exotic calibers.

The National Archives estimates that around 150 experts have viewed the autopsy photos and x-rays. 99% agree with the original finding. That's a better percentage than Dentine's 4 or of 5 dentists.

 

[HSienzant]

There were autopsy photographs that went missing before the official inventory was made.

So on what basis are you claiming the current photographs are incomplete? It can't be by comparing to the official inventory, it must be something else.

We know what your answer is going to be... 35 years after the assassination, somebody remembered there were other photographs, that they don't see in the current collection. Based on that recollection from more than a third of a century after the autopsy, which you cannot know is correct, you claimed destruction of evidence.

Right?

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

So by your own admission yet another argument for the entry wound being higher than Humes remembered it. Thanks again.

Sometimes I get the impression you're trying out a comedy routine, where you argue for one thing and cite the facts for the exact opposite.

Hank

So that's how your logic works? An entry wound in that location would be inconsistent with a single gunshot to explain all of the injuries to the head, so the most logical explanation is to change the location of the wound? Nope, the statements by the autopsy participants are just too strong. You can't remove a brain without first removing the top of the skull, and yet Dr. Finck always said he could examine the entry hole in the skull, undisturbed as a perforation in the occipital bone. LOW entry wound. They measured the locations of the wounds on the night of the autopsy. How much does it have to be spelled out for you?

 

[MicahJava]

So you're pinning your argument on a recollection by Finck approximately six years after the assassination, instead of the autopsy photos and X-Rays taken on the night of the autopsy?

So just establish Finck's recollection was 100% correct, and we can all go home happy.

Ball in your court. Note I said "establish", not "assume". There is a difference.

Hank

Everybody from the autopsy's recollections of the entry wound on the back of the head have consistently matched the measurement taken on the night of the autopsy: 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the EOP.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Everybody from the autopsy's recollections of the entry wound on the back of the head have consistently matched the measurement taken on the night of the autopsy: 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the EOP.

Where did Oswald's shot enter the skull?

 

[MicahJava]

That's interesting.

Please tell us when the Warren Commission first came up with the single bullet theory and when the drawings were made. For your claim to be true, the Warren Commission had to come up with the single bullet theory BEFORE the drawings.

So tell us when each happened. Then cite the evidence the Warren Commission reached out to Humes and convinced him to lie.

You won't, because you can't. It couldn't possibly have happened that way. Humes testimony was on March 16th, 1964. It was at that time the Rydberg drawings were already entered into evidence.
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0178a.htm

It was in April (14th and 21st) of 1964 that the Warren Commission first discussed the issue of a single bullet wounding both JFK and Connally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-bullet_theory
"On April 14 and 21, two conferences were held at the Commission to determine when, exactly, the president and governor were struck."

You are clearly just making up an conspiracy argument to excuse the inaccuracies in the schematic drawing Rydberg made and which YOU CITED AS ACCURATE.

Your arguments are a joke. You try to convince us the drawings are accurate, then argue they deliberately misplace at least one of the wounds, and concede they are therefore inaccurate.

A single bullet entering the back and exiting the throat was the official story within just a couple of days or so after the assassination. Connally or no Connally.

If you think the bullet never exited the throat, tell us where it went. And why the autopsy report written on the weekend of the assassination reached that very conclusion.
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0284a.htm

So what's the problem here, except the schematic drawing you cited as accurate but are now arguing misplaces at least one of the wounds?

Hank

A scenario with a EOP-throat connection would have the missile falling into the limousine.

Also, as pointed out by me before, the evidence indicates that the doctors knew about the throat wound on the night of the autopsy, but later lied and said they only learned about it afterwards.

 

[HSienzant]

So that's how your logic works? An entry wound in that location would be inconsistent with a single gunshot to explain all of the injuries to the head, so the most logical explanation is to change the location of the wound?

I'm not changing the location of the wound. I'm accepting the evidence from the forensic panel and discounting the recollections from decades after the fact. Still waiting for you to tell us what the measurement was for how high above the external occipital protuberance the wound was.

Nope, the statements by the autopsy participants are just too strong.

Recollections from decades after the assassination aren't worth doodley-squat. Everyone but CTs like you recognizes that fact.

You can't remove a brain without first removing the top of the skull....

We covered that extensively in the past. Keep beating your dead horse. Keep ignoring contrary evidence. The skull was so extensively fractured that only two cuts with a scalpel were required to peel back the scalp to remove the brain. And in fact, the back of head autopsy photo you posted more than once doesn't show anything more than this.

...and yet Dr. Finck always said he could examine the entry hole in the skull, undisturbed as a perforation in the occipital bone. LOW entry wound.

The occipital bone still goes quite high on the back of the head, or at least, it did the last time I checked. Maybe they've moved it since then.

They measured the locations of the wounds on the night of the autopsy. How much does it have to be spelled out for you?

Just spell out the measurement of how high above the EOP the doctors determined the back of head wound was, and this will be all over. You won't, because you can't.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Everybody from the autopsy's recollections of the entry wound on the back of the head have consistently matched the measurement taken on the night of the autopsy: 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the EOP.

Interesting, except we know that's false.

You yourself quoted Humes arguing for the white matter at the hairline below the EOP as the entry wound. This is what you get when you decide to accept recollections instead of hard evidence. Wounds that move all over the place.

Don't you remember this exchange?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11978266#post11978266

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

A single bullet entering the back and exiting the throat was the official story within just a couple of days or so after the assassination. Connally or no Connally.

Great. Now you're conceding the prior argument by you was wrong. That the back wound had to be moved... we know that's false because you just admitted the back wound and the throat wound were always connected from Saturday morning, 11/23/1963 onward... once Humes and Dr. Perry spoke.

And since that was the conclusion as expressed in the official autopsy report, there was no need for Dr. Humes to fudge anything. At that point, what was his gain from partaking in treasonous activity and lying about the location of the wound?

It's ironic that after telling us that Humes is a lying scoundrel who moved the back wound up to aid in a coverup of the truth, you then want to hang your hat on where Humes put the back of head wound 35 years after the fact. That's more than ironic, in fact, it's downright funny.

Don't you recall claiming this earlier today?

Humes directed the back wound to be drawn higher as the result of an agenda to endorse a single bullet entering the back and exiting the throat.

You don't get to pick and choose which of Humes claims are trustworthy.

A scenario with a EOP-throat connection would have the missile falling into the limousine.

And no such missile was found in the limousine. Only two large fragments, both of which were ballistically traceable to Oswald's weapon and both of which struck the back of the head and caused the massive explosion of brain and skull out the front top of JFK head as seen in Zapruder frame 313. As determined by HUMES (and Boswell and Finck and a dozen forensic pathologists).

Also, as pointed out by me before, the evidence indicates that the doctors knew about the throat wound on the night of the autopsy, but later lied and said they only learned about it afterwards.

The contemporaneous evidence indicates no such thing. You're back to cherry-picking from the recollections of the autopsy personnel from 35 years after the fact. That won't do. Everyone knows how unreliable those recollections are.

Besides, connecting the two on the night of the assassination instead of the following morning doesn't help you any. It just makes your argument that Humes had to move the wound up much more problematic. If he was going to lie about it, why not lie about it from the very beginning, instead of starting in March when Rydberg made the drawing? Your arguments don't even fit together in any cohesive manner.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Furthermore, Tomtomkent can not exclude the theory that the open-cranium photographs do indeed show the EOP wound.

The prime candidate is the dark area in the lower-right corner:

NSFW - autopsy photo

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/OxNBCsc.gif[/qimg]

See the size of the doctor's fingers and how they are beneath the skull bone in the foreground where the dark spot lays. That would make it a good fit for the elliptical 15x6mm wound described in the autopsy report. In this orientation, it would show the top of the head (occipital-parietal, with the center of the image being the "cowlick" area). His chin would probably have to be resting on his chest to show everything in this orientation. [emphasis added]

Whoa. I realize "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds" [Emerson] but the key word in there is 'foolish'.

You've been consistently arguing that the cowlick area was cut off by the craniotomy BEFORE the brain was removed, and then you show us an autopsy photo with the brain removed and claim the cowlick area is visible right in the middle of the photo.

That makes NO sense. According to your own arguments, it should be someplace else on the autopsy table by this time.

Hank