Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[MicahJava]

It is a sad day when the wound described by the autopsy report and the autopsy doctors is considered a pet theory.

 

[HSienzant]

The EOP shot did not cause the large head wound.

It is a sad day when the wound described by the autopsy report and the autopsy doctors is considered a pet theory.

Indeed.

The autopsy surgeons said the large head wound was caused by the bullet that entered the back of the head.

Your pet theory (bolded above) contradicts their conclusion.

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

It is a sad day when the wound described by the autopsy report and the autopsy doctors is considered a pet theory.

You know what's sadder? A guy who can't count to two.

1 - Strikes the back, exits the throat, and continues into the Texas Governor.

2 - Strikes the back of the head blowing out the top front of the skull.

Both wounds almost exclusive to the 6.5x52mm round fired from Oswald's Carcano.

 

[Tomtomkent]

It is a sad day when the wound described by the autopsy report and the autopsy doctors is considered a pet theory.

Yes, I too am saddened when somebody continues to, bewilderingly, claim the autopsy describes a wound to the "EOP", as an argument for additional bullets, and indeed there is something wrong with the autopsy because of draft numbers...

After all, the wound described is clearly from the region of the "cowlick" on the photographs to the large exit wound caused by trauma ejecta. It's just plain sad that people will read the report, and the conclusions of the doctors given in testimony, and still try to pretend decades later recollections Trump this, or that the word "slightly" can be used to better suit their silly hypothesis.

 

[BStrong]

It is a sad day when the wound described by the autopsy report and the autopsy doctors is considered a pet theory.

All of your posts fall into that category.

 

[RoboTimbo]

It is a sad day when my misinterpretation of the wound described by the autopsy report and the autopsy doctors is considered a pet theory.

I fixed that for you. Isn't your lack of knowledge of the autopsy even more sad?

You're still losing.

 

[MicahJava]

Indeed.

The autopsy surgeons said the large head wound was caused by the bullet that entered the back of the head.

Your pet theory (bolded above) contradicts their conclusion.

Hank

Hypothesizing more than one gunshot wound to the head starts with the existence of the EOP wound. The official conclusion of one head shot cannot be used as evidence for a higher entry wound.

 

[bknight]

Hypothesizing more than one gunshot wound to the head starts with the existence of the EOP wound. The official conclusion of one head shot cannot be used as evidence for a higher entry wound.

You have shown no evidence of any other GSW to the head, therefore you can't hypothesize any other resultant than the autopsy provides all of us. The evidence is clear as Hank posted, one GSW to the back of the head, with one large exit wound in the upper right frontal region.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Hypothesizing more than one gunshot wound to the head starts with the existence of the EOP wound. The official conclusion of one head shot cannot be used as evidence for a higher entry wound.

What were the findings of the autopsy? Not CT website ravings, the actual autopsy.

 

[HSienzant]

Hypothesizing more than one gunshot wound to the head starts with the existence of the EOP wound. The official conclusion of one head shot cannot be used as evidence for a higher entry wound.

You were the one complaining about the lack of faithfulness to the autopsy findings. Then you posit a scenario that isn't faithful to the autopsy findings.

You don't remember claiming both those things?

It is a sad day when the wound described by the autopsy report and the autopsy doctors is considered a pet theory.

The EOP shot did not cause the large head wound.

You also ignore the fact that all the forensic pathologists from the HSCA & Clark panels that reviewed the extant autopsy materials likewise concluded that the shot that hit JFK in the back of the head exited the top right of the head.

So your scenario is not only contrary to the autopsists findings, it is CONTRARY TO EVERY FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST'S FINDINGS as well. You can't salvage it by pretending you're the only one being faithful to the autopsy findings. You're not being faithful to the autopsy findings. You disagree with the experts more than you agree with them. Your layman's view has no standing here -- or anywhere else.

And whatever happened to your complaint about the two large bullet fragments found in the car not being ballistically traceable to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world? Did I resolve that to your satisfaction, or are you still claiming, CONTRARY TO ALL THE EXPERTS THERE as well, that the fragments can't be matched to Oswald's rifle?

So you believe in a conspiracy. What I'm confused about is whether your belief in a conspiracy came first and therefore you purposefully ignore the experts that contradict your faith, or whether you decided at the outset you were smarter than the experts, could therefore ignore all their findings, and reach your own conclusions regardless of their findings.

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

It is a sad day when the wound described by the autopsy report and the autopsy doctors is considered a pet theory.

And yet:

Hypothesizing more than one gunshot wound to the head starts with the existence of the EOP wound. The official conclusion of one head shot cannot be used as evidence for a higher entry wound.

So, you treat the wound, as described by the autopsy, including the accurate location, as a pet theory, to justify your inane insistence on two wounds.

Let's be absolutely clear:
The wound described in the autopsy is a complete wound.
It begins on the back of the head, shows signs of massive displacement from a trauma wave, and the explosive exit on the side of the head reaching to the front.

You have said yourself that the damage to the brain is not possible from your claim of the entry wound.

This does NOT mean there was a second bullet hole.

It means your "EOP" interpretation is wrong, because it does not fit with the full description of the wound.

It makes it obvious the conclusions of the autopsy (which, by the way, you offer no evidence of having read and understood) to be correct.

Your hypothesis is wrong. It does not fit, or best explain, the pattern of evidence. You do not get to cherry pick which bits of evidence suits your hypothesis, a hypothesis has to posit an explanation for the evidence.

 

[Axxman300]

Hypothesizing more than one gunshot wound to the head starts with the existence of the EOP wound. The official conclusion of one head shot cannot be used as evidence for a higher entry wound.

You cannot hypothesize without common sense.

The number of head-shots on any of the assassination films is exactly 1.

The number of headshots seen by every eye witness on Elm Street, and in the Secret Service chase car was exactly 1.

The number of entry wounds to the skull is exactly 1.

Like said before, to grasp the assassination you must have the ability to count to 2. Understanding the head wound means you should be able to count to 1.

Your problem is clear.

 

[MicahJava]

You cannot hypothesize without common sense.

The number of head-shots on any of the assassination films is exactly 1.

The number of headshots seen by every eye witness on Elm Street, and in the Secret Service chase car was exactly 1.

The number of entry wounds to the skull is exactly 1.

Like said before, to grasp the assassination you must have the ability to count to 2. Understanding the head wound means you should be able to count to 1.

Your problem is clear.

What's the point of counting to 2 if you have chosen to never understand it?

Why do you think head wounds always work like Hollywood?

Why are you expecting witnesses to see a wound that was a small hole covered by his hair?

 

[RoboTimbo]

What's the point of counting to 2 if you have chosen to never understand it?

Why do you think head wounds always work like Hollywood?

Why are you expecting witnesses to see a wound that was a small hole covered by his hair?

Answer Hank's post. You're still losing.

 

[HSienzant]

What's the point of counting to 2 if you have chosen to never understand it?

You're the one who should be answering this.

You don't understand ballistics, weapons, pathology, or criminology, yet you attempt to lecture here on your amazing discoveries concerning the JFK assassination conspiracy you uncovered -- discoveries you haven't been able to convince one other in the world are true.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Yes, I too am saddened when somebody continues to, bewilderingly, claim the autopsy describes a wound to the "EOP", as an argument for additional bullets, and indeed there is something wrong with the autopsy because of draft numbers...

After all, the wound described is clearly from the region of the "cowlick" on the photographs to the large exit wound caused by trauma ejecta. It's just plain sad that people will read the report, and the conclusions of the doctors given in testimony, and still try to pretend decades later recollections Trump this, or that the word "slightly" can be used to better suit their silly hypothesis.

If you want to successfully deconstruct an argument, get it right first.

The three main autopsy doctors, Humes, Boswell, and Finck consistently maintained a lower entry wound under repeated interviewing like the autopsy report implies with "2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the EOP". The autopsy report was based in part by measurements of the wounds taken at the autopsy. Five other autopsy witnesses, John Stringer, Francis X. O'Neil, Chester Boyers, Roy Kellerman, Richard Lipsey, have also made statements indicating a lower entry wound. Dr. George Burkley was not asked specifically about the location of the entry wound, but he did verify the autopsy face sheet diagram showing an entry wound roughly in the lower head area. He may have also contributed the line in The Death Of A President about the fatal bullet entering the cerebellum. So he's pretty much a EOP witness. No witness to this small head wound described seeing it on the top of the head. They all indicate a lower location.

The consensus on the autopsy participant accounts is further sealed by the fact that Dr. Finck arrived at the autopsy after the brain had already been removed, yet could still examine this wound on the scalp and skull, and always said that this wound was still completely intact within Kennedy's open cranium. Autopsies remove the brain by first separating most of the top of the skull, so therefore any entry defect on the top of the head would also be separated, especially considering that the area around his large defect was so fractured and breakable that virtually no sawing of the skull had to be done. The three main autopsy doctors also made statements later on indicating that a special incision in the scalp had to be made to expose the entry wound low in his head, after the incision and deflection of the had already been done on the top of his head. The brainstem was also reported to be damaged. Cyril Wecht also once wrote about a possible bullet fragment he identified in the upper neck area.

Gee, I wonder what freaking "slightly" means!

Do you think the red spot on the BOH photos is an entry wound? Well, that was specifically denied by the guy who took the photos, John Stringer, and the three main autopsy doctors. Dr. Boswell even told the HSCA and ARRB that he thought the red spot was a scalp injury related to the large head wound. Think the photographs shows a ruler measuring the wound? The doctors and photographer Stringer have all denied the ruler had any significance. 'Just there to provide Scale'. After all, the back wound photograph shows the ruler some distance away from the actual wound. Think the hair appears to be parted around the red spot? Well the old gang all denied that such washing or parting of the hair happened, but alternately, it could have been a wound of some significance but was not the wound described by the doctors. Perhaps a tear in the scalp like Boswell said, or perhaps an exit for a fragment. It is known that the red spot does not appear to be an actual hole devoid of scalp and bone. It looks two-dimensional. Viewing the autopsy photographs as stereoscopic morphing images will also notice that the red spot appears to be somewhat lower than the HSCA's chosen location on the skull for a higher entry wound. So why doesn't the present official autopsy photo collection show the EOP wound? Well, we know that autopsy photographs have gone missing, and the doctors and photographers have indicated that they remembered close-up photographs of an entry wound in the scalp and surfaces of the skull. The EOP wound could still be compatible with the BOH photographs if it is hiding within his hairline or under a bit of hair. After all, there is witness evidence that a small hole in Kennedy's forehead above his right eye existed, but the existing autopsy photographs do not give a clear view of any hole there (although they definitely suggest some weird activity in that area, with the red 'V' and all). They were probably destroyed by vultures who wanted to keep the forensic evidence as vague as possible.

The three main autopsy doctors and x-ray tech John Ebersole have said that they didn't think the X-rays shows an entry on the top of the head. For every person propped up as an expert who agreed that the X-rays showed an entry defect 4-5 inches above the EOP, there's another that either disagreed or couldn't identify any particular entry defect on the X-rays.

There is no strong case for the cowlick entry theory.

 

[Tomtomkent]

If you want to successfully deconstruct an argument, get it right first.

The three main autopsy doctors, Humes, Boswell, and Finck consistently maintained a lower entry wound under repeated interviewing like the autopsy report implies with "2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the EOP". The autopsy report was based in part by measurements of the wounds taken at the autopsy. Five other autopsy witnesses, John Stringer, Francis X. O'Neil, Chester Boyers, Roy Kellerman, Richard Lipsey, have also made statements indicating a lower entry wound. Dr. George Burkley was not asked specifically about the location of the entry wound, but he did verify the autopsy face sheet diagram showing an entry wound roughly in the lower head area. He may have also contributed the line in The Death Of A President about the fatal bullet entering the cerebellum. So he's pretty much a EOP witness. No witness to this small head wound described seeing it on the top of the head. They all indicate a lower location.

The consensus on the autopsy participant accounts is further sealed by the fact that Dr. Finck arrived at the autopsy after the brain had already been removed, yet could still examine this wound on the scalp and skull, and always said that this wound was still completely intact within Kennedy's open cranium. Autopsies remove the brain by first separating most of the top of the skull, so therefore any entry defect on the top of the head would also be separated, especially considering that the area around his large defect was so fractured and breakable that virtually no sawing of the skull had to be done. The three main autopsy doctors also made statements later on indicating that a special incision in the scalp had to be made to expose the entry wound low in his head, after the incision and deflection of the had already been done on the top of his head. The brainstem was also reported to be damaged. Cyril Wecht also once wrote about a possible bullet fragment he identified in the upper neck area.

Gee, I wonder what freaking "slightly" means!

Do you think the red spot on the BOH photos is an entry wound? Well, that was specifically denied by the guy who took the photos, John Stringer, and the three main autopsy doctors. Dr. Boswell even told the HSCA and ARRB that he thought the red spot was a scalp injury related to the large head wound. Think the photographs shows a ruler measuring the wound? The doctors and photographer Stringer have all denied the ruler had any significance. 'Just there to provide Scale'. After all, the back wound photograph shows the ruler some distance away from the actual wound. Think the hair appears to be parted around the red spot? Well the old gang all denied that such washing or parting of the hair happened, but alternately, it could have been a wound of some significance but was not the wound described by the doctors. Perhaps a tear in the scalp like Boswell said, or perhaps an exit for a fragment. It is known that the red spot does not appear to be an actual hole devoid of scalp and bone. It looks two-dimensional. Viewing the autopsy photographs as stereoscopic morphing images will also notice that the red spot appears to be somewhat lower than the HSCA's chosen location on the skull for a higher entry wound. So why doesn't the present official autopsy photo collection show the EOP wound? Well, we know that autopsy photographs have gone missing, and the doctors and photographers have indicated that they remembered close-up photographs of an entry wound in the scalp and surfaces of the skull. The EOP wound could still be compatible with the BOH photographs if it is hiding within his hairline or under a bit of hair. After all, there is witness evidence that a small hole in Kennedy's forehead above his right eye existed, but the existing autopsy photographs do not give a clear view of any hole there (although they definitely suggest some weird activity in that area, with the red 'V' and all). They were probably destroyed by vultures who wanted to keep the forensic evidence as vague as possible.

The three main autopsy doctors and x-ray tech John Ebersole have said that they didn't think the X-rays shows an entry on the top of the head. For every person propped up as an expert who agreed that the X-rays showed an entry defect 4-5 inches above the EOP, there's another that either disagreed or couldn't identify any particular entry defect on the X-rays.

There is no strong case for the cowlick entry theory.

And yet the evidence, as discussed at length in this thread, disagrees with your interpretations.

The autopsy disagrees with you.
The testimony disagrees with you.
Even your own cherry picked quotes disagree with you.

You know, you can read the autopsy and see what the word "slightly " actually describes.

 

[Axxman300]

What's the point of counting to 2 if you have chosen to never understand it?

If you can't count to 2, then you have big problems in basic reasoning.

Case in point, your conjecture - based on zero evidence of any kind - that somehow another bullet struck JFK in the head. Something that no other CTist has ever suggested because (while they disagree on where the headshot came from) they can count to two.

Why do you think head wounds always work like Hollywood?

I don't.

Thanks to our wonderful war on terror, the fun bunch with the ZETAS in Mexico, Al Qaeda, and ISIS there are thousands of videos of people being shot; shot in the head, shot in the head a point blank range, shot with a variety of calibers, shot at long range, and chewed up by belt-fed machine guns.

I've watched these videos more than I care to admit.

Plus, I used to go shooting.

Why are you expecting witnesses to see a wound that was a small hole covered by his hair?

If you knew even just the basics of guns and bullets you could answer this question yourself. That's how dumb it is.

 

[Axxman300]

If you want to successfully deconstruct an argument, get it right first.

You should take your own advice.

The autopsy report was based in part by measurements of the wounds taken at the autopsy.

And it ends there.

Statements made months, and years after the fact are subject to memory, and while are not invalid they are not reliable.

Only in CT Land do people think this way.

Autopsies remove the brain by first separating most of the top of the skull, so therefore any entry defect on the top of the head would also be separated,

Actually, Pathologists remove the brain. Autopsy is a name for medical procedure.

Also, bone-saws are cool, and the human skull is easy to work on with one.
They just cut where they could, and carefully worked around the shattered portion, and left the hole.

Duh.

The three main autopsy doctors also made statements later on indicating that a special incision in the scalp had to be made to expose the entry wound low in his head, after the incision and deflection of the had already been done on the top of his head.

Weird, almost like the top of his skull was blown open, so they had to do some careful cutting around the wound.

I mean it's almost like they're medical experts or something.

The brainstem was also reported to be damaged

Nope. Not in the report.

Cyril Wecht also once wrote about a possible bullet fragment he identified in the upper neck area.

Cyril is a CTist. Sure he's an M.D., but out of 40 pathologists he's the only one suggesting this.

Think the photographs shows a ruler measuring the wound?

Nobody has suggested this. It's fun watching you build your own straw man to tear down, but nobody suggested this, and the ruler thing has been known since that picture was released.

You know what that picture DOES SHOW?

The scalp peeled down to reveal the skull had been sawed open (you can see a flash of the bone in the upper left corner.

Here's an idea: Look at the pictures first before interpreting them.

So why doesn't the present official autopsy photo collection show the EOP wound?

Nobody has seen them so no honest person can say what they show.

Well, we know that autopsy photographs have gone missing,

Lie.

Seriously, if you're going to make this claim then you need to list which ones are missing by their exhibit number, and then compare this to the negatives which are still in the possession of the Kennedy family.

What did the National Archives tell you when you emailed them to inform them of this theft?

the doctors and photographers have indicated that they remembered close-up photographs of an entry wound in the scalp and surfaces of the skull.

The same doctors who reviewed those photographs in 1977 and said they were all there? Those doctors?

After all, there is witness evidence that a small hole in Kennedy's forehead above his right eye existed, but the existing autopsy photographs do not give a clear view of any hole there

The reason there's no hole in the pictures is because there's no hole.

Your "witness" is a liar trying to make money off of a tragedy, nothing more.

The Parkland ER doctors are the best rebuttal to this particular lie. If there was a hole there they'd have seen it.

They didn't.

They were probably destroyed by vultures who wanted to keep the forensic evidence as vague as possible.

BS...name these vultures. State their motive.

We've called you out on this before and all we get from you is cowardice. Lay the plot out for us. Who had that kind of power? Why kill JFK in such a public fashion when there were BETTER ways to do the job with little chance of discovery? Your theory involves over 1,500 men, you know this, right? Men on the ground in Texas, men at Bethesda, men at the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, and Dallas PD.

What, you haven't thought it through that far?

There is no strong case for the cowlick entry theory.

Well...except for the body.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I'm sorry, but some guy who thinks the "splotch looks two dimensional" is not going to convince me.

The photograph we have is not great. It looks like a wound to me, and for the life of me, I don't know what some other leyman expects a wound to look like, but let's see what we can assess from the photograph:

The hair has been deliberately parted (so why somebody would insist it was a natural cowlick makes no sense to me) to reveal the mark that is the focal point of the image. The scale and framing make this obvious. We can therefore know the mark was considered significant.
If it were not a wound, and was indeed just a splotch, we would have to ask why the effort was taken to record an insignificant detail.

Those following the thread long enough to remember Robert Prey's...unique sensibilities, will be more than familiar enough with the oft repeated arguments of "the photographer said those weren't their photographs" to know that there were sanitised and unsanitised photographs taken. With more than one photographer taking pictures at different times, one saying "those are not the ones I took" is not the same as saying "they are not of the body", no matter how dearly conspiracy minded folks wish it did.

There comes a point when the ignorance of procedures and process, required to maintain the belief in a conspiracy, begins to look wilful. Suspicions simply don't survive if you understand what the autopsy says, what the testimony says, and why.